Re: [patch] kprobes: optimize branch placement

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:44:25 -0400
> Karim Yaghmour <karim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > So now you're resorting to your uber-talents as a kernel guru to 
> > bury the other side?
> 
> It's hardly rocket science - it appears that nobody has ever bothered.

yeah. Performance of kprobes was never really a big issue, kprobes were 
always more than fast enough in my opinion. Would be nice if Mathieu 
could try to re-run his kprobes test with these patches applied. I still 
havent given up on the hope of convincing the LTT folks that they 
shouldnt let their sizable codebase drop on the floor but should attempt 
to integrate it with kprobes/systemtap. There's nothing wrong with what 
LTT gives to users, it's just the tracing engine itself (the static hook 
based component) that i have a conceptual problem with - not with the 
rest. Most of the know-how of tracers is in the identification of the 
information that should be extracted, its linkup and delivery to 
user-space tools.

	Ingo
-
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/