Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1766953AbXEBRto (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 13:49:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1766955AbXEBRto (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 13:49:44 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:48155 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1766953AbXEBRtm (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 13:49:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 19:49:40 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Andrew Morton Cc: Andi Kleen , Mathieu Desnoyers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, wfg@ustc.edu Subject: Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans Message-ID: <20070502174940.GA9089@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20070430162007.ad46e153.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070501220803.GA27698@Krystal> <20070502104413.GC4392@one.firstfloor.org> <20070502094707.4197ab7a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070502094707.4197ab7a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1576 Lines: 35 On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 09:47:07AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 2 May 2007 12:44:13 +0200 Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > It is currently used as an instrumentation infrastructure for the LTTng > > > tracer at IBM, Google, Autodesk, Sony, MontaVista and deployed in > > > WindRiver products. The SystemTAP project also plan to use this type of > > > infrastructure to trace sites hard to instrument. The Linux Kernel > > > Markers has the support of Frank C. Eigler, author of their current > > > marker alternative (which he wishes to drop in order to adopt the > > > markers infrastructure as soon as it hits mainline). > > > > All of the above don't use mainline kernels. > > That's because they have to add a markers patch! I meant they use very old kernels. Their experiences don't apply to mainline bitrottyness. > > That doesn't constitute using it. > > Andi, there was a huge amount of discussion about all this in September last > year (subjects: *markers* and *LTTng*). The outcome of all that was, I > believe, that the kernel should have a static marker infrastructure. I have no problem with that in principle; just some doubts about the current proposed implementation: in particular its complexity. And also I think when something is merged it should have some users in tree. -Andi - 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/