* Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shish...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > One good approach to do that would be to unify the BTS and PT
> > tooling (the kernel side can be unified as well, to the extent it
> > makes sense), and to prove it via actual functionality that this
> > stuff matters. BTS is available widely, so the tooling can be
> > tested by anyone who's interested.
> >
> > Allow people to record crashes in core dumps, allow them to look
> > at histograms/spectrograms of BTS/PT traces, zoom in on actual
> > traces, etc. - make it easier to handle this huge amount of data
> > and visualize traces in other ways you find useful, etc.
> >
> > None of that is done right now via BTS so nobody uses it.
>
> So I can make BTS appear as an "itrace" pmu similarly to PT. One
> question that comes to mind is should we then dispose of the old
> interface that's used for accessing BTS functionality or make it
> coexist with the new one.
So we could make the old ABI a CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS_COMPAT_X86_BTS kind
of legacy option, turned off by default. That allows us its eventual
future phasing out.
It all depends on how useful the new tooling becomes: if interesting
things can be done with it via an obvious, powerful interface then
people might start using it.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
