[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANsc=4UGi5sMdUW5qQDzEJx4h8NDU+-b=xOLBAZtzbV5ugz3Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:49:25 -0500
From: Adrien Vergé <adrienverge@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM Coresight: Enhance ETM tracing control
2013/12/4 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>:
> How much overhead does the existing tracing code have on ARM? Is ETM
> still even needed? Why not just use ETM for the core tracing code
> instead?
Coresight ETM is not just faster than /sys/kernel/debug/tracing, it
provides more detailed and customisable info. For instance, you can
trace every load, store, instruction fetch, along with the number of
cycles taken, with almost zero-overhead.
> What's wrong with the in-kernel tracing logic that you can't use that
> instead of the ETM stuff?
ETM has a different purpose. Integrating it in
/sys/kernel/debug/tracing would not take advantage of all its
features.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists