[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071213102939.GS8977@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:29:39 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>
Cc: ak@...e.de, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, markus.t.metzger@...il.com,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, roland@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: x86, ptrace: support for branch trace store(BTS)
* Metzger, Markus T <markus.t.metzger@...el.com> wrote:
> Users who want to process that huge amount of data would be better off
> using a file-based approach (well, if it cannot be held in physical
> memory, they will spend most of their time swapping, anyway). Those
> users would typically wait for the 'buffer full' event and drain the
> buffer into a file - whether this is the real buffer or a bigger
> virtual buffer.
>
> The two-buffer approach would only benefit users who want to hold the
> full profile in memory - or who want to stall the debuggee until they
> processed or somehow compressed the data collected so far. Those
> approaches would not scale for very big profiles. The small profile
> cases would already be covered with a reasonably big real buffer.
well, the two-buffer approach would just be a general API with no
limitations. It would make the internal buffer mostly a pure performance
detail.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists