From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755853AbZETAnC (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 20:43:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754886AbZETAmy (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 20:42:54 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.125]:57460 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754750AbZETAmx (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 20:42:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 20:42:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven Rostedt X-X-Sender: rostedt@gandalf.stny.rr.com To: Mathieu Desnoyers cc: Jason Baron , LKML , Frederic Weisbecker , Ingo Molnar , Lai Jiangshan , Peter Zijlstra , jiayingz@google.com, mbligh@google.com, roland@redhat.com, "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] tracepoints: delay argument evaluation In-Reply-To: <20090520003314.GA8790@Krystal> Message-ID: References: <20090519211704.GA3325@Krystal> <20090520003314.GA8790@Krystal> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 19 May 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > Given the tradeoff is taste vs overhead, what do you think of the > following proposal ? > > trace(block_bio_complete, md->queue, bio); I'm fine with this. It is extremely important that the trace point overhead is negligible when disabled. Otherwise, they serve no purpose. -- Steve