[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090313114953.43E2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:05:53 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/16] tracing: show that buffer size is not expanded
> From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
>
> Impact: do not confuse user on small trace buffer sizes
>
> When the system boots up, the trace buffer is small to conserve memory.
> It is only two pages per online CPU. When the tracer is used, it expands
> to the default value.
>
> This can confuse the user if they look at the buffer size and see only
> 7, but then later they see 1408.
>
> # cat /debug/tracing/buffer_size_kb
> 7
>
> # echo sched_switch > /debug/tracing/current_tracer
>
> # cat /debug/tracing/buffer_size_kb
> 1408
>
> This patch tries to help remove this confustion by showing that the
> buffer has not been expanded.
>
> # cat /debug/tracing/buffer_size_kb
> 7 (expanded: 1408)
Hi,
I have one question.
Why souldn't use following output?
sprintf(buf, "%lu\n", trace_buf_size >> 10);
My point is:
- pure number output can hadle easily.
- nobody need to know internal memory saving logic.
--
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