[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020802230654y3913447bh39390fdd78a96cf3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:54:49 +0200
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, sandmann@...hat.com,
tglx@...x.de, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is "hard to set up", but not if
> your distributor already did it for you.
>
> Sidebar: the code uses the utterly crappy register_timer_hook() which
>
> a) is woefully misnamed and
>
> b) is racy and
>
> c) will disrupt oprofile if it is being used. And vice versa.
I wonder if sysprof should hook to the same interrupt as oprofile then?
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> This code adds a new kernel->userspace interface which is not even
> documented in code comments. It appears to use a pollable debugfs file in
> /proc somewhere, carrying an unspecified payload.
[snip]
> This reads a single item even if there were 100 queued, which is quite
> inefficient.
>
> We already have infrastructure for bulk kernel->user transfer in
> kernel/relay.c?
Agreed. This seems like a perfect fit with relayfs.
--
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