[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080923232239.DC1E.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:36:26 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, od@...ell.com,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
systemtap-ml <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Unified tracing buffer
> By the way, systemtap uses two modes;
>
> - single-channel mode
> In this mode, all cpus share one buffer channel to write and read.
> each writer locks spinlock and write a probe-local data to buffer.
>
> - per-cpu buffer mode
> In this mode, we use an atomic sequential number for ordering data. If
> user doesn't need it(because they have their own timestamps), they can
> choose not to use that seq-number.
I can't imazine a merit of the single-channel mode.
Could you please explain it?
Because some architecture don't have fine grained timestamp?
if so, could you explain which architecture don't have it?
--
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