Re: Enhanced profiling support (was Re: vm lock contention reduction)
From: John Levon <hidden>
Date: 2002-07-10 04:36:06
Also in:
lkml
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 12:16:05AM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote: [snip]
And the list goes on.
Sure, there are all sorts of things where some tracing can come in useful. The question is whether it's really something the mainline kernel should be doing, and if the gung-ho approach is nice or not.
The fact that so many kernel subsystems already have their own tracing built-in (see other posting)
Your list was almost entirely composed of per-driver debug routines. This is not the same thing as logging trap entry/exits, syscalls etc etc, on any level, and I'm a bit perplexed that you're making such an assocation.
expect user-space developers to efficiently use the kernel if they have absolutely no idea about the dynamic interaction their processes have with the kernel and how this interaction is influenced by and influences the interaction with other processes?
This is clearly an exaggeration. And seeing as something like LTT doesn't (and cannot) tell the "whole story" either, I could throw the same argument directly back at you. The point is, there comes a point of no return where usefulness gets outweighed by ugliness. For the very few cases that such detailed information is really useful, the user can usually install the needed special-case tools. In contrast a profiling mechanism that improves on the poor lot that currently exists (gprof, readprofile) has a truly general utility, and can hopefully be done without too much ugliness. The primary reason I want to see something like this is to kill the ugly code I have to maintain.
quoted
The entry.S examine-the-registers approach is simple enough, but it's not much more tasteful than sys_call_table hackery IMHOI guess we won't agree on this. From my point of view it is much better to have the code directly within entry.S for all to see instead of having some external software play around with the syscall table in a way kernel users can't trace back to the kernel's own code.
Eh ? I didn't say sys_call_table hackery was better. I said the entry.S thing wasn't much better ... regards john -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/