Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

[Jose R. Santos]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:19:07 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > What Karim is sharing with us here (yet again) is the real in-field 
> > > experience of real users (ie: not kernel developers).
> > 
> > well, Jes has that experience and Thomas too.
>
> systemtap and ltt are the only full-scale tracing tools which target
> sysadmins and applciation developers of which I am aware..
>   

IMO, I think SystemTap is to generic of a tool to be considered a 
tracing tool.  LKET and LKST are more comparable with the functionality 
that LTT provides.  LKET is implemented using SystemTap while LKST has 
both a SystemTap and static kernel patch implementation.


> In the bit of text which you snipped I was agreeing with this...
>
> Look, if Karim and Frank (who I assume is a systemtap developer) think that
> we need static tracepoints then I have no reason to disagree with them. 
> What I would propose is that:
>
> a) Those tracepoints be integrated one at a time on well-understood
>    grounds of necessity.  Tracepoints _should_ be added dynamically.  But
>    if there are instances where that's not working and cannot be made to
>    work then OK, in we go.
>   
Agree.  What would be the criteria that justifies having static probe vs 
a dynamic one?

-JRS

-
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/