Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] tracing: 'hist' triggers
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Mon Mar 02 2015 - 14:32:06 EST
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:14:54 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think we both want to see in-kernel aggregation.
> This 'hist' stuff is trying to do counting and even map sorting
> in the kernel, whereas with bpf programs I'm moving
> all of these decisions to user space.
> I understand your desire to avoid any user level scripts
> and do everything via 'cat' and debugfs, but imo that's
> very limiting. I think it's better to do slim user space
> scripting language that can translate to bpf even in
> embedded setups. Then users will be able to aggregate
> whatever they like, whereas with 'hist' approach
> they're limited to simple counters.
> trace_events_trigger.c - 1466 lines - that's quite a bit
> of code that will be rarely used. Kinda goes counter
> to embedded argument. Why add this to kernel
> when bpf programs can do the same on demand?
At Collab, a lot of people came to me telling me they love the debugfs
system. Because it's everywhere they go. You remove that, you remove
most users (including myself).
> Also the arguments about stable ABI apply as well.
> The format of 'hist' file would need to be stable, so will
> be hard to extend it. With bpf programs doing aggregation
> the kernel ABI exposure is much smaller.
I disagree with this statement.
> So would you consider working together on adding
> clean bpf+tracepoints infra and corresponding
> user space bits?
> We can have small user space parser/compiler for
> strings that will convert it into bpf program and you'll
> be able to use it in embedded setups ?
Make sure it also works on android.
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/