From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754033AbYIZKpj (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:45:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751461AbYIZKpa (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:45:30 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.124]:54577 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750875AbYIZKpa (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:45:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:45:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven Rostedt X-X-Sender: rostedt@gandalf.stny.rr.com To: Peter Zijlstra cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , Masami Hiramatsu , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Linus Torvalds , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , David Wilder , hch@lst.de, Martin Bligh , Christoph Hellwig , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4] Unified trace buffer In-Reply-To: <1222413507.16700.235.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: References: <20080925185154.230259579@goodmis.org> <20080925185236.244343232@goodmis.org> <48DC406D.1050508@redhat.com> <20080926032045.GA28771@Krystal> <1222413507.16700.235.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 23:20 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > > You could also fallback on a 2-level page array when buffer size is > > > 64MB. The cost is mainly a supplementary pointer dereference, but one > > more should not make sure a big difference overall. > > I'm still not sure why we don't just link the pages using the page > frames, we don't need the random access, do we? Yeah we can go back to that (as ftrace does). 1) It can be very error prone. I will need to encapsulate the logic more. 2) I'm still not sure if crash can handle it. I was going to reply to Masami with this answer, but it makes things more complex. For v1 (non RFC v1) I wanted to start simple. v2 can have this enhancement. -- Steve