Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932299AbWIOVlR (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:41:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932295AbWIOVlQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:41:16 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:59845 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932298AbWIOVlQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:41:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:32:13 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Roman Zippel , Andrew Morton , tglx@linutronix.de, karim@opersys.com, Paul Mundt , Jes Sorensen , 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: <20060915213213.GA12789@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> <20060915202233.GA23318@Krystal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060915202233.GA23318@Krystal> 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: 2621 Lines: 68 * Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote: > > sorry, but i disagree. There _is_ a solution that is superior in every > > aspect: kprobes + SystemTap. (or any other equivalent dynamic tracer) > > > > I am sorry to have to repeat myself, but this is not true for heavy > loads. djprobes? > > > At this point you've been rather uncompromising [...] > > > > yes, i'm rather uncompromising when i sense attempts to push inferior > > concepts into the core kernel _when_ a better concept exists here and > > today. Especially if the concept being pushed adds more than 350 > > tracepoints that expose something to user-space that amounts to a > > complex external API, which tracepoints we have little chance of ever > > getting rid of under a static tracing concept. > > > From an earlier email from Tim bird : > > "I still think that this is off-topic for the patch posted. I think > we should debate the implementation of tracepoints/markers when > someone posts a patch for some. I think it's rather scurrilous to > complain about code NOT submitted. Ingo has even mis-characterized > the not-submitted instrumentation patch, by saying it has 350 > tracepoints when it has no such thing. I counted 58 for one > architecture (with only 8 being arch-specific)." i missed that (way too many mails in this thread). Here is how i counted them: $ grep "\