Re: tracepoint maintainance models

[Martin Bligh]

Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Llu, 2006-09-18 am 13:27 -0400, ysgrifennodd Frank Ch. Eigler:
>
> > Unless one's worried about planetary-scale energy use, I see no point
> > in multiplying overheads by "every box on the planet".
>
>
> Because we are all paying for your debug stuff we aren't using. Systems
> get slow and sucky by the death of a million cuts not by one stupid
> action.

Bear in mind that it could be CONFIG'ed out, so you can still do as you
choose. But for many people, the ability to get insight into their
application's interaction with the kernel and get several % performance
improvement by understanding their environment will outweigh the 0.01%
overhead of a few nops.

IME, most performance problems are not little tiny instruction-cycle
level things, they're huge sucking wounds that people just don't know
how to fix, or that they even exist (such as "oops, I single-threaded
all my IO from my app").

M.
-
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/