Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] perf: Take a hot regs snapshot for traceevents

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:16 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > This is what I actually was wondering about. Why is it a "perf only"
> > trace point instead of a TRACE_EVENT()?
> 
> Because I wanted to make perf usable without having to rely on funny
> tracepoints. That is, I am less worried about committing software
> counters to ABI than I am about TRACE_EVENT(), which still gives me a
> terribly uncomfortable feeling.
> 
> Also, building with all CONFIG_TRACE_*=n will still yield a usable perf,
> which is something the embedded people might fancy, all that TRACE stuff
> adds lots of code.

We could make TRACE_EVENT() into a perf only trace point with
CONFIG_TRACE_*=n. 

Just saying that it would be nice if ftrace could also see page faults
and such.

-- Steve



--
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/