Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965233AbWIRCLl (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:11:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965237AbWIRCLl (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:11:41 -0400 Received: from opersys.com ([64.40.108.71]:38672 "EHLO www.opersys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965233AbWIRCLk (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:11:40 -0400 Message-ID: <450E053B.1070908@opersys.com> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:32:27 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour Reply-To: karim@opersys.com Organization: Opersys inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; 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: Mathieu Desnoyers , Paul Mundt , linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Jes Sorensen , Andrew Morton , Roman Zippel , Tom Zanussi , Richard J Moore , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Michel Dagenais , Christoph Hellwig , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , William Cohen , "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: tracepoint maintainance models References: <450D182B.9060300@opersys.com> <20060917112128.GA3170@localhost.usen.ad.jp> <20060917143623.GB15534@elte.hu> <20060917153633.GA29987@Krystal> <20060918000703.GA22752@elte.hu> <450DF28E.3050101@opersys.com> <20060918011352.GB30835@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20060918011352.GB30835@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: 2883 Lines: 70 Ingo Molnar wrote: > Karim, i dont usually reply if you insult me (and you've grown a habit > of that lately ), but this one is almost parodic. FWIW, Ingo, my own appreciation of events is that I've shown much restraint and patience with you than you'll ever acknowledge. FWIW, Ingo, I have nothing against you personally. I've said it before in unrelated threads and I'll say it again: I have a lot of respect for your abilities, as a Linux user on a daily basis I silently profit from immense contributions you have made time and again. FWIW, Ingo, I've been more than a good sport on other issues where we've disagreed. Case-in-point: while I disagreed with you on your choice to pursue preemption, I made it a point to personally go out of my way to congratulate every single preemption supporter I had disagreed with in the past at this year's OLS: Thomas, Steven, Sven, Manas, etc. I didn't see you personally, so here's a belated congratulations. > MARK(event, a); ... > MARK(event, a, x); You assume these are mutually exclusive. Your argument can only be made to be believable if people promoting direct inline instrumentation were fascists -- which may be convenient for some to believe. There is no reason why if the *default* inline marker is insufficient that a user or developer cannot circumvent it at runtime using a dynamic probe mechanism. But if you look at the *facts*, you'll see that once a given set of events is identified as being interesting, they usually remain unchanged. Which is, in fact, the feedback given by Jose's experience with LKET -- which, again, is based on Systemtap. For a given known-to-be-useful valid marker, information deficit is the exception, not the rule. > hence, in this specific example, there is a real difference between the > markup needed for dynamic tracers, compared to the markup needed for > static tracers - to achieve the same end-result of passing (event,a,x) > to the tracer. No. This is true only if you conceive that tool engineers actually want to restrict themselves to obtaining events from a given *mechanism*. And *that* is not substantiated by any historical record. In fact, quite the opposite. Even if you were to consider but the *old* ltt, here's from previous correspondence: > Subsequently, I initiated discussions with the IBM DProbes > team back in 2000 and thereafter implemented facilities for > enabling dynamically-inserted probes to route their events > through ltt -- all of which was functional as of November > 2000. Karim -- President / Opersys Inc. Embedded Linux Training and Expertise www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546 - 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/