From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <52D13631.2060100@xenomai.org> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 13:16:49 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <44lhyrmuw9.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <52CC7D71.4040703@steinkuehler.net> <52CC83F1.40000@xenomai.org> <52CC85C5.4060703@steinkuehler.net> <52CC8A18.2020807@xenomai.org> <52CCA101.2040604@steinkuehler.net> <3FA64D57-1BB1-4B4A-AB25-AC8E280105F8@mah.priv.at> In-Reply-To: <3FA64D57-1BB1-4B4A-AB25-AC8E280105F8@mah.priv.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] i-pipe tracer on in production kernels? (was Re: Altera Cyclone V) List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Michael Haberler Cc: "xenomai@xenomai.org" On 01/11/2014 11:22 AM, Michael Haberler wrote: > > http://www.xenomai.org/index.php/I-pipe:Tracer describes the trace > API, which could be useful to track down issues > > Q: does enabling the tracer incur significant overhead if compiled in > but unused, or is it reasonable to leave it on in a production > kernel? You should run some tests to answer that question: measure the latency with tracer compiled-in but not enabled, and with tracer completely disabled. I would expect to see a difference between the two configurations, but I do not know if it would be very significant. -- Gilles.