Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 00/13] Add multiple trace backend function and add new ftrace backend for libvirt

I sincerely appreciate the analysis and feedback from you to my patch. As you have pointed out, there are a few of drawbacks in the realization of ftrace, such as overhead and the loss of check of systemtap/dtrace, which I think are due to technical reasons and which I must contemplate on. It is determined that I take on my precious advices and work out a next version of ftrace. And on that new start point, it might be advisable to re-assess the integration of multi-tracer framework(ftrace including) into libvirt, which I strongly believe will practically benefit libvirt. A big advantage of using ftrace for libvirt is that we can easily merge all trace data of libvirt, QEMU, and kernel into one memory buffer. That makes it really easier for us to investigate a problem. When we worked on a problem, we didn't know in which QEMU or libvirt the root cause resided. we needed to look at logging files of both QEMU and libvirt in parallel, but it was really hard. The time QEMU and libvirt has was different so we can't compare the each line of the log easily. As to the dtrace, which is included in libvirt, is more difficult for average users to configurate the D-script. For developer, maybe trace is a powerful, flexible and dynamical tool, but in average users' actual occasion, something such as ftrace may be more practical. The communication with the original author of ftrace has commenced and it is hopeful that the license will soon be legally permitted to me. I am looking forward to any exchange of view of whether multi-tracer framework(ftrace including) is necessary. Regards Yang Zhiyong