Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762936AbYFDXlu (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2008 19:41:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757810AbYFDXlm (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2008 19:41:42 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:44901 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757543AbYFDXlm (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2008 19:41:42 -0400 Message-ID: <484727D3.7090004@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:40:03 -0400 From: Masami Hiramatsu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mathieu Desnoyers CC: Peter Zijlstra , Hideo AOKI , mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Kernel marker has no performance impact on ia64. References: <48447052.3030300@redhat.com> <1212445965.6269.22.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20080602232135.GA20173@Krystal> <4846210E.8080401@redhat.com> <20080604232640.GB8488@Krystal> In-Reply-To: <20080604232640.GB8488@Krystal> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1602 Lines: 44 Hi Mathieu, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >>> Maybe we could settle for an intermediate solution : I agree with you >>> that defining the trace points in headers, like you did for the >>> scheduler, makes the code much cleaner and makes things much easier to >>> maintain afterward. However, having the trace_mark mechanism underneath >>> helps a lot in plugging a generic tracer (actually, if we can settle the >>> marker issue, I've got a kernel tracer, LTTng, that I've been waiting >>> for quite a while to push to mainline that I would like to post someday). >> That's good to me. >> BTW, I'd like to know your plan, would those static inline functions be >> defined in new headers or marker.h(or other existing headers)? >> > > Hi Masami, > > What do you think of kernel/sched-trace.h for the scheduler as proposed > by Peter ? Having these headers close to the c file instrumentation they > deal with seems to scale maintenance better. Placing all these in one > big kernel header included everywhere would require to recompile the > whole kernel when the header is touched, which is, I guess, not what we > want. I agree with you, one big kernel header is hard to maintain, especially by patches :-) Thanks, -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com -- 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/