Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965004AbWIQQ7j (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:59:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965026AbWIQQ7j (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:59:39 -0400 Received: from smtp102.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.212]:47526 "HELO smtp102.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965004AbWIQQ7j (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:59:39 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=zjAAtO6dE3Jqicgb7DHdIS6L7P4/E8qMYwk0k9LTxulHuDPQUZjR9Cvzl6iDOp3F5pIuDumsi6Kmd4X0DRSLxCd8c3YtykgAtf3jCDhJXD2GX+CixSt0Ujt+QvJTDBMn30xcHvL+BdioHbJqF1ffzRFttb7ocW8ljevGMMWfyVc= ; Message-ID: <450D7EF0.3020805@yahoo.com.au> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:59:28 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roman Zippel CC: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , karim@opersys.com, Andrew Morton , 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 References: <20060915215112.GB12789@elte.hu> <20060915231419.GA24731@elte.hu> <20060916082214.GD6317@elte.hu> <20060916230031.GB20180@elte.hu> <20060917084207.GA8738@elte.hu> <20060917152527.GC20225@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1704 Lines: 42 Hi, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >>>The foremost issue is still that there is only limited kprobes >>>support. >> >>>The main issue in supporting static tracers are the tracepoints and so >>>far I haven't seen any convincing proof that the maintainance overhead >>>of dynamic and static tracepoints has to be significantly different. Above, weren't you asking about static vs dynamic trace-*points*, rather than the implementation of the tracer itself. I think Ingo said that some "static tracepoints" (eg. annotation) could be acceptable. >>to both points i (and others) already replied in great detail - please >>follow up on them. (I can quote message-IDs if you cannot find them.) > > > What you basically tell me is (rephrased to make it more clear): Implement > kprobes support or fuck off! You make it very clear, that you're unwilling > to support static tracers even to point to make _any_ static trace support Now it seems you are talking about compiled vs runtime inserted traces, which is different. And so far I have to agree with Ingo: dynamic seems to be better in almost every way. Implementation may be more complex, but that's never stood in the way of a better solution before, and I don't think anybody has shown it to be prohibitive ("I won't implement it" notwithstanding) -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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/