Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
- From: Roman Zippel <zippel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:40:41 +0200 (CEST)
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
i have one very fundamental question: why should we do this
source-intrusive method of adding tracepoints instead of the dynamic,
unintrusive (and thus zero-overhead) KProbes+SystemTap method?
Could you define "zero-overhead"?
Actual implementation aside having a core number of tracepoints is far
more portable than KProbes.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
- References:
- [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers
- Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
- From: Ingo Molnar
- [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
- Prev by Date: LM85 problems with 2.6.16.x
- Next by Date: Re: argh! it's reiserfs deadlocking! [was: Re: JFS - real deadlock and lockdep warning (2.6.18-rc5-mm1)]
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|