[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812032125340.28153@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:29:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, fweisbec@...il.com,
peterz@...radead.org, arjan@...radead.org, dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
serue@...ibm.com, srostedt@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ftrace: trace single pid for function graph tracer
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> writes:
>
> The way patch 2 uses pids is just stupid. It has nothing to do with
> pids aren't unique. You do a full walk of the process list instead
> of using the hash table.
The way patch 2 uses the pids is stupid, it was just the easiest way to
implement it correctly ;-) I work with, do it stupid but correct first,
then optimize.
>
> It makes me think that task->pid really should go away because with it
> there people don't bother to look and see how things normally work.
This is far from a fast path, and I can easily fix it. The hard work was
the rest of the patch not this part. I even did it stupid knowing that I
would be rewriting it to handle namespaces. I stated that this needed to
be fixed in the patch itself.
One thing I never got an answer for, using the namespace pid path, can I
still select the idle task to trace, i.e. pid == 0.
-- 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