Hi,
I just posted a reduced LTTng-core version of my tracer to LKML (without any
instrumentation, trying to get only the tracer core). However, Ingo seems use
SystemTAP as an example against the introduction of a united tracer core in the
Linux kernel.
I though that you would probably like to tell SystemTAP's point of view on that
matter publicly.
Regards,
Mathieu
----- Forwarded message from Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> -----
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:27:18 +0200
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@us.ibm.com>, ltt-dev@shafik.org,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@polymtl.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:
Following an advice Christoph gave me this summer, submitting a
smaller, easier to review patch should make everybody happier. Here is
a stripped down version of LTTng : I removed everything that would
make the code review reluctant (especially kernel instrumentation and
kernel state dump module). I plan to release this "core" version every
few LTTng releases and post it to LKML.
Comments and reviews are very welcome.
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?
Ingo
----- End forwarded message -----
OpenPGP public key: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg
Key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68