From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B13918A5 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 01:27:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31FCDE9 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 01:27:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 21:27:50 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Linus Torvalds Message-ID: <20170629212750.5c3542ee@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20170629211641.5aeb3af7@gandalf.local.home> References: <152520246.5707.1498771254819.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20170629195537.534445e7@gandalf.local.home> <20170629203224.6bf7f29a@gandalf.local.home> <20170629205218.5b9a7923@gandalf.local.home> <20170629211641.5aeb3af7@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit , Peter Zijlstra , Julien Desfossez , daolivei , bristot , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Pulling away from the tracing ABI quicksands List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I know I said that was going to be my last email, but I just noticed something by re-reading the thread. On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 21:16:41 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > Just to explain what Mathieu was talking about with echo and such, is > > > that Peter Zijlstra has been against multiple tracepoints for that one > > > sched switch location. > > > > I am too. > > > > Dammit, if somebody cares about one partiocular scheduler, then that > > person can add dynamic tracepoints. > > You mean kprobes? Or perhaps eBPF? I missed this because you cut it out. What I originally wrote: Just to explain what Mathieu was talking about with echo and such, is that Peter Zijlstra has been against multiple tracepoints for that one sched switch location. He would prefer a dynamic case, instead of having to enable all tracepoints, to get full functionality, as he tends to use echo / cat to interact with ftrace than by using the tools. He doesn't want the hassle of enabling more than one tracepoint for sched_switch. Where I mentioned that he prefers a dynamic tracepoint. Is that what you mean? Because what he prefers doesn't exist yet. It's not kprobes nor eBPF. It is something we've been talking about implementing, and we were going to discuss the implementation at ksummit. Are you OK with that? -- Steve