* Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/20/11 03:08, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > (Cc:-ing Arnaldo on this as well.)
> >
> > * Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
>
> < snip >
>
> > I think your concentration on ABIs is missing a very fundamental
> > property of instrumentation:
> >
> > the life-time and persistence of instrumentation data is
> > typically very short ('days' is already an exception - typical
> > is minutes, at most hours), and for that reason we havent been
> > getting much pressure from users to maintain a perf.data ABI -
> > but we are doing it nevertheless.
> >
> > Instrumentation is fundamentally about the 'here and now' and so
> > it fundamentally differs from things like backup formats and
> > database formats. An ABI does not hurt and we are maintaining
> > it, but you are overrating its importance significantly.
>
> Just to provide visibility to a different use case...
>
> The life time of my data is typically weeks, months, or years
> (though I am not likely to re-process year old raw data).
I'm not saying that it's absolutely never done: for example
monitoring/logging on a production box and evaluating events
only once per month would certainly qualify.
I just say that the overwhelming majority of usecases utilize
traces on a short time-span and that we must keep the common
usecase in mind when supporting not so common usecases.
It's the same deal as with -rt: compared to the 'normal' usage
of Linux -rt is somewhat of a special case - yet it's still
something very much worth doing, as long as the main usecase is
always kept in mind.
Thanks,
Ingo
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
