Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932269AbWIOVRb (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:17:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932276AbWIOVRb (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:17:31 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:61854 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932269AbWIOVRa (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:17:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:08:49 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Roman Zippel Cc: Andrew Morton , tglx@linutronix.de, karim@opersys.com, Paul Mundt , Jes Sorensen , Mathieu Desnoyers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tom Zanussi , ltt-dev@shafik.org, Michel Dagenais Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 Message-ID: <20060915210849.GA11291@elte.hu> References: <450AB506.30802@sgi.com> <450AB957.2050206@opersys.com> <20060915142836.GA9288@localhost.usen.ad.jp> <450ABE08.2060107@opersys.com> <1158332447.5724.423.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060915111644.c857b2cf.akpm@osdl.org> <20060915181907.GB17581@elte.hu> <20060915200559.GB30459@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: 1138 Lines: 29 * Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > i'm also looking at it this way too: you already seem to be quite > > reluctant to add kprobes to your architecture today. How reluctant > > would you be tomorrow if you had static tracepoints, which would > > remove a fair chunk of incentive to implement kprobes? > > If I see that whole teams spend years to implement efficient dynamic > tracing, do you really think that your "incentive" makes any > difference? oh, being the first mover is the hardest part. Finding the right solution is a hard, it is blind Brownian motion in untested waters. Once good solutions have been found and once they have been integrated upstream, an architecture 'only' has to follow straight through the example. (which is _still_ far from trivial, but it certainly doesnt take years.) 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/