Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965161AbWIRAGM (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:06:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965163AbWIRAGL (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:06:11 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:32446 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965161AbWIRAGK (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:06:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:05:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Ingo Molnar cc: Nicholas Miell , Paul Mundt , Karim Yaghmour , linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Jes Sorensen , Andrew Morton , Tom Zanussi , Richard J Moore , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Michel Dagenais , Mathieu Desnoyers , Christoph Hellwig , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , William Cohen , "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: tracepoint maintainance models In-Reply-To: <20060917230623.GD8791@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <450D182B.9060300@opersys.com> <20060917112128.GA3170@localhost.usen.ad.jp> <20060917143623.GB15534@elte.hu> <1158524390.2471.49.camel@entropy> <20060917230623.GD8791@elte.hu> 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: 1490 Lines: 31 Hi, On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > what is being proposed here is entirely different from dprobes though: > Roman suggests that he doesnt want to implement kprobes on his arch, and > he wants LTT to remain an _all-static_ tracer. [...] > > Even if the LTT folks proposed to "compromise" to 50 tracepoints - users > of static tracers would likely _not_ be willing to compromise, so there > would be a constant (and I say unnecessary) battle going on for the > increase of the number of static markers. Static markers, if done for > static tracers, have "viral" (Roman: here i mean "auto-spreading", not > "disease") properties in that sense - they want to spread to alot larger > area of code than they start out from. 1. It's not that I don't want to, but I _can't_ implement kprobes and not due to lack of skills, but lack of resources. (There is a subtle but important difference.) 2. I don't want LTT to be "all static tracer" at all, I want it to be usable as a static tracer, so that on archs where kprobes are available it can use them of course. This puts your second paragraph in a new perspective, since the userbase and thus the pressure for more and more static tracepoints would be different. 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/