[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231220205705.64de0424@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 20:57:05 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark
Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Tzvetomir Stoyanov <tz.stoyanov@...il.com>,
Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>, Kent Overstreet
<kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 15/15] tracing: Update subbuffer with kilobytes not
page order
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 09:26:21 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> > If the user specifies 3 via:
> >
> > echo 3 > buffer_subbuf_size_kb
> >
> > Then the sub-buffer size will round up to 4kb (on a 4kb page size system).
> >
> > If they specify:
> >
> > echo 6 > buffer_subbuf_size_kb
> >
> > The sub-buffer size will become 8kb.
>
> I think this is better interface. Can we apply this earlier in the series
> to avoid rewriting the document and test code?
I kept it separate for testing purposes.
Through out all this, it was a good way to make sure the two approaches
were compatible. I still like to keep them separate as that's the way it
was developed. It's good to keep that history.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists