Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751148AbWINUdF (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:33:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751149AbWINUdF (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:33:05 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:1773 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751148AbWINUdC (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:33:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:24:52 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Roman Zippel 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 Message-ID: <20060914202452.GA9252@elte.hu> References: <20060914033826.GA2194@Krystal> <20060914112718.GA7065@elte.hu> <20060914135548.GA24393@elte.hu> <20060914171320.GB1105@elte.hu> <20060914181557.GA22469@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.9 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.9 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 0.5 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1786 Lines: 38 * Roman Zippel wrote: > > > > also, the other disadvantages i listed very much count too. Static > > > > tracepoints are fundamentally limited because: > > > > > > > > - they can only be added at the source code level > > > > > > > > - modifying them requires a reboot which is not practical in a > > > > production environment > > > > > > > > - there can only be a limited set of them, while many problems need > > > > finegrained tracepoints tailored to the problem at hand > > > > > > > > - conditional tracepoints are typically either nonexistent or very > > > > limited. > > Sorry, but I fail to see the point you're trying to make (beside your > personal preferences), none of this is a unsolvable problem, which > would prevent making good use of static tracepoints. those are technical arguments - i'm not sure how you can understand them to be "personal preferences". The only personal preference i have is that in the end a technically most superior solution should be merged. (be that one project or the other, or a hybrid of the two) The analysis of which one is a better solution depends on pros and cons - exactly like the ones listed above. If they are solvable problems then please let me know how you would solve them and when you (or others) would solve them, preferably before merging the code. Right now they are pretty heavy cons as far as LTT goes, so obviously they have a primary impact on the topic at hand (whic is whether to merge LTT or not). Ingo - 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/