[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080923150209.GF29900@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:02:09 -0400
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.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,
systemtap-ml <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Unified tracing buffer
Hi -
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 11:36:26PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > 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 [...]
>
> I can't imazine a merit of the single-channel mode.
> Could you please explain it?
It could be a way of saving some memory and merging hassle for
low-throughput data. (Remember that systemtap enables in-situ
analysis of events so that often only brief final results need be sent
along need be sent out.) If timestampwise cross-cpu merging can be
done on demand by the hypothetical future buffer widget, then little
reason remains not to use it.
- FChE
--
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