On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 23:03:43 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > And any change on it, now and in the future, will cause confusion for > > 99.999% of raw sched_switch users. > > Sod that, this attitude makes me want to rip out all sched tracepoints. > > > Without considering those who wrote bad applications that will break, > > That's bonus points, right? > > I'm seriously annoyed with this hard ABI for tracepoints crap. No need. Userspace tools that use tracepoints should be able to be fixed. Linus has been a bit lenient with respect to tracepoint breakage, if we can get tools updated before we change them. He's mentioned that tracepoints are a bit special because they are so tied to the internals of the kernel, and those tools that read them, should be a bit tied to the kernel as well. But we need to make sure those tools still work with updates. Thus we need to work with the tools that might break. That also means that if there's bad applications that will break, they should be fixed. With that. I'm not concerned at all about users being inconvenienced that tracepoint data isn't what they want to see, as long as they can get the information out that they do need. A tool can always massage the tracepoints into whatever nice formality that users expect. Wasted space is a concern to me because that means lack of data, which is what I don't want. Confusing data can be changed by userspace to be less confusing. Missing data is gone and there's nothing userspace can do about it. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
