28 Jul 2006 04:08:30 +0200, Soeren Sandmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Matthew Allum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > But I think the difference here is, and a point you've very well made, > > is sysprof is designed for desktop type hardware - thats not (usually) > > ARM. On ARM we *need* features that oprofile gives us like use of > > hardware foo to lower overhead and the data collection separation. > > Porting sysprof to ARM as to be useful would likely break your original > > design goals. > > I wouldn't say that sysprof is designed for desktop type _hardware_, > as much as it is designed for desktop developers. After all, an ARM of > today is as powerful as a desktop not that many years ago, and sysprof > actually goes to quite some length to limit the amount of CPU and > memory it uses.
Yes, it (the module) indeed seems to work just fine on ARM. When I get the symbol resolving working too I'll be able to tell if the overhead is meaningful or not. -- Kalle Vahlman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Powered by http://movial.fi Interesting stuff at http://syslog.movial.fi _______________________________________________ Performance-list mailing list Performance-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/performance-list
