[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200903251143.12472.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:43:11 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ltt-dev@...ts.casi.polymtl.ca,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Hideo AOKI <haoki@...hat.com>,
Takashi Nishiie <t-nishiie@...css.fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu" <eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro>
Subject: Re: [patch 7/9] LTTng instrumentation - kernel
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 05:03:13 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> (Rusty Cc:-ed - for the module.c tracepoints below)
Thanks, tho they look fine and non-intrusive to me.
> I believe that to have a complete picture of module usage, module
> refcount get/put events should be included as well, beyond the basic
> load/free events.
>
> These both have performance impact (a module get/put in a fastpath
> hurts scalability), and are informative in terms of establishing the
> module dependency graph.
A module_get()/put() should not hurt scalability at all! I went to great and
horrible lengths to ensure that was the case since the rewrite in 2.4.
But a module dependency graph et. al. would be kind of cool.
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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