[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0809251025170.3265@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
cc: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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, "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 Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> We could use a page header instead to contain the "unused_size"
> information.
Absolutely. There's no one way to do this.
> I would prefer to put the extended timestamp within the event header
> instead of creating a separate entry for this for atomicity concerns
> (what happens if a long interrupt executes between the TSCExtend marker
> event and the event expecting to be written right next to it ?).
The log entries should be reserved with interrupts disabled anyway, and
they are per-CPU, so there are no atomicity issues.
For NMI's, things get more exciting. I'd really prefer NMI's to go to a
separate ring buffer entirely, because otherwise consistency gets really
hard. Using lockless algorithms for a variable-sized pool of pages is a
disaster waiting to happen.
I don't think we can currently necessarily reasonably trace NMI's, but
it's something to keep in mind as required support eventually.
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