Re: [PATCH] new irq tracer

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:10:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I really am having a difficult time seeing the use in such narrow
> > > tracers.
> > 
> > Part of the problem may come from defining "tracers" as something
> > limited to ftrace engines.  Once such tracepoints are in the kernel,
> > more powerful analytical tools may be attached to them.
> 
> ftrace graph tracer is by far the most powerful thing I've seen [...]

Be that as it may, what you suggested required separate correlation of
data with /proc/interrupts contents.


> What is limiting are these puny little tracers that have no real value.

Which limited resource would even puny tracers exhaust?


> A much better purpose for these tracepoints would be augmenting data in
> existing tracers like the graph/function/sched tracer.

Be more specific.  How would you augment those tracers with e.g.
individual irq numbers, their disposition status (HANDLED etc.).


- FChE
--
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/