* Ingo Molnar (mingo@xxxxxxx) wrote:I think Ingo is right in saying what we really need first is a generic mechanism in how to specify static markers in the kernel which can be used to put dynamic probes on demand or use as a real static function calls if one chooses. Once we agree on the marker mechanism dynamic tracing and static tracing can both co-exist happily.
* Roman Zippel <zippel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:[...]
also, the other disadvantages i listed very much count too. Static tracepoints are fundamentally limited because:
Right now they are pretty heavy cons as far as LTT goes, so obviously they have a primary impact on the topic at hand (whic is whether to merge LTT or not).
Ingo, why are you arguing about static instrumentation when I don't submit any
static instrumentation in my patch ? You can argue about static VS dynamic
instrumentation all you want, but please don't apply this debate to a dicision
about including or not a core tracing infrastructure that has nothing to do
with the way instrumentation or probes are inserted.
Mathieu
OpenPGP public key: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg
Key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 -
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/