Re: tracepoint maintainance models

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> what is being proposed here is entirely different from dprobes though: 
> Roman suggests that he doesnt want to implement kprobes on his arch, and 
> he wants LTT to remain an _all-static_ tracer. [...]
> 
> Even if the LTT folks proposed to "compromise" to 50 tracepoints - users 
> of static tracers would likely _not_ be willing to compromise, so there 
> would be a constant (and I say unnecessary) battle going on for the 
> increase of the number of static markers. Static markers, if done for 
> static tracers, have "viral" (Roman: here i mean "auto-spreading", not 
> "disease") properties in that sense - they want to spread to alot larger 
> area of code than they start out from.

1. It's not that I don't want to, but I _can't_ implement kprobes and not 
due to lack of skills, but lack of resources. (There is a subtle but 
important difference.)
2. I don't want LTT to be "all static tracer" at all, I want it to be 
usable as a static tracer, so that on archs where kprobes are available it 
can use them of course. This puts your second paragraph in a new 
perspective, since the userbase and thus the pressure for more and more 
static tracepoints would be different.

bye, Roman
-
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/