Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932157AbWIOWW2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:22:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932329AbWIOWW2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:22:28 -0400 Received: from opersys.com ([64.40.108.71]:46092 "EHLO www.opersys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932157AbWIOWW2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:22:28 -0400 Message-ID: <450B29FB.7000301@opersys.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:32:27 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour Reply-To: karim@opersys.com Organization: Opersys inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060804 Fedora/1.0.4-0.5.1.fc5 SeaMonkey/1.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: "Jose R. Santos" , Mathieu Desnoyers , Roman Zippel , Andrew Morton , tglx@linutronix.de, 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 References: <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> <450B164B.7090404@us.ibm.com> <20060915220345.GC12789@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20060915220345.GC12789@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1415 Lines: 32 Ingo Molnar wrote: > that is not true at all. Yes, an INT3 based kprobe might be expensive if > +0.5 usecs per tracepoint (on a 1GHz CPU) is an issue to you - but that > is "only" an implementation detail, not a conceptual property. > Especially considering that help (djprobes) is on the way. And in the djprobes has been "on the way" for some time now. Why don't you at least have the intellectual honesty to use the same rules you've repeatedly used against ltt elsewhere in this thread -- i.e. what it does today is what it is, and what it does today isn't worth bragging about. But that would be too much to ask of you Ingo, wouldn't it? But, sarcasm aside, even if this mechanism existed it still wouldn't resolve the need for static markup. It would just make djprobe a likelier candidate for tools that cannot currently rely on kprobes. > NOTE: i still accept the temporary (or non-temporary) introduction of > static markers, to help dynamic tracing. But my expectation is that > these markers will be less intrusive than static tracepoints, and a lot > more flexible. Chalk one up for nice endorsement and another for arbitrary distinction. Karim - 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/