[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131205040104.GA14641@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:01:04 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Adrien Vergé <adrienverge@...il.com>
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
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:49:25PM -0500, Adrien Vergé wrote:
> 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.
Can't you already do that with the 'perf' tool the kernel provides
without the ETM driver?
> > 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.
What is it's purpose then? At first glance, this seems to be exactly
what 'perf' provides already. Doesn't perf work on ARM today?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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