[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58F81EF4.5070304@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:37:40 -0700
From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To: Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: robh+dt@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: introduce event tracepoints for dynamic device_node
lifecyle
On 04/19/17 11:45, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> On 04/18/2017 07:49 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:42:32 -0700
>> Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And of course the other issue with using tracepoints is the extra space
>>> required to hold the tracepoint info. With the pr_debug() approach, the
>>> space usage can be easily removed for a production kernel via a config
>>> option.
>>
>> Now if you are saying you want to be able to enable debugging without
>> the tracing infrastructure I would agree. As the tracing infrastructure
>> is large. But I'm working on shrinking it more.
>
> The primary consumers of OF_DYNAMIC seem to be pseries and powernv where
> we are generally going to see the trace infrastructure enabled by
> default in production.
Another primary consumer will be overlays for ARM expansion boards. Still
a work in progress.
-Frank
>
> -Tyrel
>
>>
>>>
>>> Tracepoints are wonderful technology, but not always the proper tool to
>>> use for debug info.
>>
>> But if you are going to have tracing enabled regardless, adding a few
>> more tracepoints isn't going to make the difference.
>>
>> -- Steve
>>
>>>
>>>> If Rob wants to convert printk() style data to trace data (and I can't
>>>> convince him otherwise) then I will have further comments on this specific
>>>> patch.
>>>>
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists