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

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Hi,

Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> 
>>>The foremost issue is still that there is only limited kprobes 
>>>support.
>>
>>>The main issue in supporting static tracers are the tracepoints and so 
>>>far I haven't seen any convincing proof that the maintainance overhead 
>>>of dynamic and static tracepoints has to be significantly different.

Above, weren't you asking about static vs dynamic trace-*points*, rather
than the implementation of the tracer itself. I think Ingo said that
some "static tracepoints" (eg. annotation) could be acceptable.

>>to both points i (and others) already replied in great detail - please 
>>follow up on them. (I can quote message-IDs if you cannot find them.)
> 
> 
> What you basically tell me is (rephrased to make it more clear): Implement 
> kprobes support or fuck off! You make it very clear, that you're unwilling 
> to support static tracers even to point to make _any_ static trace support 

Now it seems you are talking about compiled vs runtime inserted traces,
which is different. And so far I have to agree with Ingo: dynamic seems
to be better in almost every way. Implementation may be more complex,
but that's never stood in the way of a better solution before, and I
don't think anybody has shown it to be prohibitive ("I won't implement
it" notwithstanding)

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com