[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0809240921430.3265@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
David Wilder <dwilder@...ibm.com>, hch@....de,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...cast.net>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Unified trace buffer
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So when we reserve we get a pointer into page A, but our reserve length
> will run over into page B. A write() method will know how to check for
> this and break up the memcpy to copy up-to the end of A and continue
> into B.
I would suggest just not allowing page straddling.
Yeah, it would limit event size to less than a page, but seriously, do
people really want more than that? If you have huge events, I suspect it
would be a hell of a lot better to support some kind of indirection
scheme than to force the ring buffer to handle insane cases.
Most people will want the events to be as _small_ as humanly possible. The
normal event size should hopefully be in the 8-16 bytes, and I think the
RFC patch is already broken because it allocates that insane 64-bit event
counter for things. Who the hell wants a 64-bit event counter that much?
That's broken.
Linus
--
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