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

[Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>]

Please Ingo, stop repeating false argument without taking in account people's
corrections :

* Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote:
> sorry, but i disagree. There _is_ a solution that is superior in every 
> aspect: kprobes + SystemTap. (or any other equivalent dynamic tracer)
> 

I am sorry to have to repeat myself, but this is not true for heavy loads.

> > At this point you've been rather uncompromising [...]
> 
> yes, i'm rather uncompromising when i sense attempts to push inferior 
> concepts into the core kernel _when_ a better concept exists here and 
> today. Especially if the concept being pushed adds more than 350 
> tracepoints that expose something to user-space that amounts to a 
> complex external API, which tracepoints we have little chance of ever 
> getting rid of under a static tracing concept.
> 
>From an earlier email from Tim bird :

"I still think that this is off-topic for the patch posted.  I think we
should debate the implementation of tracepoints/markers when someone posts a
patch for some.  I think it's rather scurrilous to complain about
code NOT submitted.  Ingo has even mis-characterized the not-submitted
instrumentation patch, by saying it has 350 tracepoints when it has no
such thing.  I counted 58 for one architecture (with only 8 being
arch-specific)."

Mathieu

OpenPGP public key:              http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg
Key fingerprint:     8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68