Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:13:49 -0600
From: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       sandmann@redhat.com, tglx@tglx.de, hpa@zytor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
Message-ID: <20080226041349.GA17772@kryten>
References: <20080219123756.6261c13c@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20080220091022.GB31424@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080220091022.GB31424@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1245
Lines: 31

 
> > From: Soren Sandmann <sandmann@redhat.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
> > 
> > The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where 
> > userspace is spending CPU time. See 
> > http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/sysprof/ for more information and 
> > screenshots on this tool.
> > 
> > Sysprof needs a 200 line kernel module to do it's work, this module 
> > puts some simple profiling data into debugfs.
> 
> thanks, looks good to me - applied.

Woah slow down guys. Did I miss the review?

Yes it's a 200 line patch, but it's a 200 line x86 patch. Surely we
should apply some of the same rigour we did when we merged the oprofile
patch? Is it biarch safe? Will it run on powerpc, arm etc?

I'm still struggling to understand why we need this functionality at
all. Lets argue the ABI and not cloud it with a discussion about
userspace eye candy. What does this give you that is an improvement over
the oprofile kernel-user ABI?

Anton
--
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/