Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932302AbWIOVtZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:49:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932304AbWIOVtZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:49:25 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:8585 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932302AbWIOVtY (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:49:24 -0400 Message-ID: <450B1FDD.1050803@us.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:49:17 -0500 From: "Jose R. Santos" Reply-To: jrs@us.ibm.com Organization: IBM User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: Ingo Molnar , tglx@linutronix.de, karim@opersys.com, Paul Mundt , Jes Sorensen , Roman Zippel , 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 References: <20060915132052.GA7843@localhost.usen.ad.jp> <20060915135709.GB8723@localhost.usen.ad.jp> <450AB5F9.8040501@opersys.com> <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> <20060915131317.aaadf568.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060915131317.aaadf568.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1602 Lines: 43 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:19:07 +0200 > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > What Karim is sharing with us here (yet again) is the real in-field > > > experience of real users (ie: not kernel developers). > > > > well, Jes has that experience and Thomas too. > > systemtap and ltt are the only full-scale tracing tools which target > sysadmins and applciation developers of which I am aware.. > IMO, I think SystemTap is to generic of a tool to be considered a tracing tool. LKET and LKST are more comparable with the functionality that LTT provides. LKET is implemented using SystemTap while LKST has both a SystemTap and static kernel patch implementation. > In the bit of text which you snipped I was agreeing with this... > > Look, if Karim and Frank (who I assume is a systemtap developer) think that > we need static tracepoints then I have no reason to disagree with them. > What I would propose is that: > > a) Those tracepoints be integrated one at a time on well-understood > grounds of necessity. Tracepoints _should_ be added dynamically. But > if there are instances where that's not working and cannot be made to > work then OK, in we go. > Agree. What would be the criteria that justifies having static probe vs a dynamic one? -JRS - 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/