[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811181141560.15003@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:43:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tracing/function-return-tracer: add the overrun
field
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Fr?d?ric Weisbecker wrote:
> >>
> >> Yeah, it was just a recommendation, and perhaps not a good one ;-)
> >>
> >> Frederic, it is better if you move the array from the thread info to
> >> the task struct. It will take up more memory but it is a hell of a
> >> lot safer. The pro here definitely outways the con.
> >
> > if the memory footprint starts mattering we could turn this into a
> > single pointer to an array - and add/remove these arrays (from all
> > tasks currently running) as the tracer is turned on/off.
> >
> > Ingo
> >
>
> Ok. So what do you suggest once? Do I begin to move the array from
> thread info to struct task but by keeping the static
> array or should I directly use a dynamic allocation and add/remove dynamically?
I would recommend using a static array in task struct (say 200?) and keep
the max recorded for later output. This way we can find a better size.
As for the dynamic use of different arrays. Put that towards the end. We
want to get this working solid first before adding more variables to the
equation.
-- 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