Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750748AbWINNlg (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:41:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750754AbWINNlg (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:41:36 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:14747 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750748AbWINNlf (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:41:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:40:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Ingo Molnar cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , Tom Zanussi , ltt-dev@shafik.org, Michel Dagenais Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 In-Reply-To: <20060914112718.GA7065@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <20060914033826.GA2194@Krystal> <20060914112718.GA7065@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 638 Lines: 18 Hi, On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i have one very fundamental question: why should we do this > source-intrusive method of adding tracepoints instead of the dynamic, > unintrusive (and thus zero-overhead) KProbes+SystemTap method? Could you define "zero-overhead"? Actual implementation aside having a core number of tracepoints is far more portable than KProbes. bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/