[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B0E5C06.8080500@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:44:22 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 tip/sched/core] sched: rename preempt_notifier to
sched_notifier and always enable it
Hello, Ingo.
11/26/2009 07:29 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> That could be done with just two callbacks - one for sched-out, one for
> sched-in.
>
> The best way to do that would be to use two TRACE_EVENT() callbacks,
> make them unconditional and register to them. (with wrappers to make it
> all convenient to use)
>
> This requires some work but needs to be done.
Thought about that but trace events and scheduler callbacks have very
different trigger enable/disable conditions. I couldn't think of a
way to do both in reasonably efficient manner. Although they both are
notification mechanisms, they do have pretty different requirements
and I'm not quite sure whether unifying them is a good idea. Of
course if you have an idea to do both efficiently, no reason not to do
it.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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