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

Jose R. Santos
2006-09-15T21:49:25Z

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:19:07 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> >
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> >
> > > What Karim is sharing with us here (yet again) is the real in-field
> > > experience of real users (ie: not kernel developers).
> >
> > well, Jes has that experience and Thomas too.
>
> systemtap and ltt are the only full-scale tracing tools which target
> sysadmins and applciation developers of which I am aware..
>

IMO, I think SystemTap is to generic of a tool to be considered a
tracing tool. LKET and LKST are more comparable with the functionality
that LTT provides. LKET is implemented using SystemTap while LKST has
both a SystemTap and static kernel patch implementation.

> In the bit of text which you snipped I was agreeing with this...
>
> Look, if Karim and Frank (who I assume is a systemtap developer) think that
> we need static tracepoints then I have no reason to disagree with them.
> What I would propose is that:
>
> a) Those tracepoints be integrated one at a time on well-understood
> grounds of necessity. Tracepoints _should_ be added dynamically. But
> if there are instances where that's not working and cannot be made to
> work then OK, in we go.
>
Agree. What would be the criteria that justifies having static probe vs
a dynamic one?

-JRS