[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <483D4F73.5020503@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 08:26:27 -0400
From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrace@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Changed blk trace msgs to directly use relay buffer
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, May 27 2008, Alan D. Brunelle wrote:
>
>> From 43c8ea2b78f31d7ccd349384a9a2084e787aafc1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Alan D. Brunelle <alan.brunelle@...com>
>> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:32:36 -0400
>> Subject: [PATCH] Changed blk trace msgs to directly use relay buffer
>>
>> Allows for SMP-usage without corruption, and removes an extra copy at
>> the expense of copying extra bytes. Reduced message size from 1024 to 128.
>
> Or, alternatively, something like the below. Then we don't
> unconditionally reserve and copy 128 bytes for each message, at the
> cost 128 bytes per-cpu per trace.
I looked into something like this, but thought the added complexity
wasn't worth it. Besides the extra per-cpu stuff, you also have an extra
memcopy involved - in my patch you print directly into the relay buffer.
I figure that /if/ copying (128-msg_size) extra bytes is too much, one
could always shrink the 128 down further. [I would think 64 bytes is
probably ok.]
I'd bet that the reduced complexity, and skipping the extra memcopy more
than offsets having to copy a few extra bytes...
Alan
--
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