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

[Nick Piggin]

Hi,

Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> > > The foremost issue is still that there is only limited kprobes 
> > > support.
> >
> > > The main issue in supporting static tracers are the tracepoints and so 
> > > far I haven't seen any convincing proof that the maintainance overhead 
> > > of dynamic and static tracepoints has to be significantly different.

Above, weren't you asking about static vs dynamic trace-*points*, rather
than the implementation of the tracer itself. I think Ingo said that
some "static tracepoints" (eg. annotation) could be acceptable.

> > to both points i (and others) already replied in great detail - please 
> > follow up on them. (I can quote message-IDs if you cannot find them.)
>
>
> What you basically tell me is (rephrased to make it more clear): Implement 
> kprobes support or fuck off! You make it very clear, that you're unwilling 
> to support static tracers even to point to make _any_ static trace support 

Now it seems you are talking about compiled vs runtime inserted traces,
which is different. And so far I have to agree with Ingo: dynamic seems
to be better in almost every way. Implementation may be more complex,
but that's never stood in the way of a better solution before, and I
don't think anybody has shown it to be prohibitive ("I won't implement
it" notwithstanding)

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/