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

Mathieu Desnoyers
2006-09-15T20:28:08Z

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