Re: [RFC PATCHSET] sched,perf: unify tracers in sched and moveperf on top of TP

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 08:16:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:15 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > Well, I'd much rather just see a direct call in the code than having to
> > reverse engineer wth hangs onto that _EVENT() junk.
> 
> And again, I oppose mandating CONFIG_TRACEEVENT.


And me too. But you don't need CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING for that.
TRACE_EVENT() with !CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING only produces tracepoints
if CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS.


In fact, a first progress that would handle these compromizes would
be to have CONFIG_PERF_EVENT_SW.

For now perf_event_task_sched_in and perf_event_task_sched_out can
stay as is because they are perf core utils.

But all the rest (faults, migrations, etc..) could be tracepoints builtin
only if CONFIG_PERF_EVENT_SW.
Which means CONFIG_PERF_EVENT_SW depends on CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS.

But nobody is forced to build CONFIG_PERF_EVENT_SW, breakpoints don't need
it.

--
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/