[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0809260641590.17102@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:45:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
LKML <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,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
David Wilder <dwilder@...ibm.com>, hch@....de,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4] Unified trace buffer
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 23:20 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > You could also fallback on a 2-level page array when buffer size is >
> > 64MB. The cost is mainly a supplementary pointer dereference, but one
> > more should not make sure a big difference overall.
>
> I'm still not sure why we don't just link the pages using the page
> frames, we don't need the random access, do we?
Yeah we can go back to that (as ftrace does).
1) It can be very error prone. I will need to encapsulate the logic more.
2) I'm still not sure if crash can handle it.
I was going to reply to Masami with this answer, but it makes things more
complex. For v1 (non RFC v1) I wanted to start simple. v2 can have this
enhancement.
-- Steve
--
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