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

On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 03:41:03PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 08:38:33AM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
I didn't get the "instrumentation is evil" mantra from this thread,
rather "static tracepoints are good, so long as someone else is
maintaining them". The issue comes down to who ends up maintaining the
trace points,

The claim that these tracepoints would be maintainance burden is pretty
much unproven so far. The static tracepoint haters just assume the kernel
will be littered with thousands of unrelated tracepoints, where a good
tracepoint would only document what already happens in that function, so
that the tracepoint would be far from something obscure, which only few
people could understand and maintain.

Again, this works fine so long as the number of static tracepoints is
small and manageable, but it seems like there's a division between what
the subsystem developer deems as meaningful and what someone doing the
tracing might want to look at. Static tracepoints are completely
subjective, LTT proved that this was a problem regarding general
code-level intrusiveness when the number of tracepoints in relatively
close locality started piling up based on what people considered
arbitrarily useful, and LTTng doesn't appear to do anything to address
this.

This doesn't really match my definition of a neglible maintenance
burden..
-
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/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
    ... kernel infrastructure. ... Tracepoints of course need to be managed, ... and thus is zero maintainance overhead. ... i frequently break my kernel via static tracepoints and i ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
    ... 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 ... dynamic and static tracepoints has to be significantly different. ... exactly like you would do for a dynamic trace. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
    ... engineers trying to debug things on a live, production system) want to ... Static tracepoints on the other hand, if added via an external patch, do ... Instrumentation of function boundaries is usually not much of an issue. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
    ... People want to be able to insert a tracepoint anywhere and anytime - and also they want to have zero overhead from tracing if no tracepoints are used on a system. ... on the current kernel, because the 'coupling' is loose: ... you can add add-hoc tracepoints to thousands of functions, instead of having to maintain hundreds of static tracepoints all the time. ... are magically different and should be maintained out of tree somehow. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
    ... source-intrusive method of adding tracepoints instead of the dynamic, ... kernel codepath that is to be traced, ... have less overhead when it's actually used. ... static tracepoints are fundamentally limited: ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
Quantcast