Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] unpack-trees: add performance tracing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> I can buy the argument that it's nice to have some form of profiling
> that works everywhere, even if it's lowest-common-denominator. I just
> wonder if we could be investing effort into tooling around existing
> solutions that will end up more powerful and flexible in the long run.

Another thing I noticed is that the codepaths we would find
interesting to annotate with trace_performance_* stuff often
overlaps with the "slog" thing.  If the latter aims to eventually
replace GIT_TRACE (and if not, I suspect there is not much point
adding it in the first place), perhaps we can extend it to also
cover the need of these trace_performance_* calls, so that we do not
have to carry three different tracing mechanisms.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux