Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964894AbWIQR1V (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:27:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965029AbWIQR1V (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:27:21 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:17339 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964894AbWIQR1U (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:27:20 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:26:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Nick Piggin 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 In-Reply-To: <450D7EF0.3020805@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: 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> <450D7EF0.3020805@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1896 Lines: 40 Hi, On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Nick Piggin 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. No, he made it rather clear, that as far as possible he only wants dynamic annotations (e.g. via function attributes). > > 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) I don't deny that dynamic tracer are more flexible, but I simply don't have the resources to implement one. If those who demand I use a dynamic tracer, would also provide the appropriate funding, it would change the situation completely, but without that I have to live with the tools available to me. bye, Roman - 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/