lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.11-rc1-mm1
Hi,

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Karim Yaghmour wrote:

> > Why should a subsystem care about the details of the buffer management?
>
> Because it wants to enforce a data format on buffer boundaries.

It's interesting to read more about ltt's requirements, but I still think
it's possible to leave this work to the relayfs layer.
Why not just move the ltt buffer management into relayfs and provide a
small library, which extracts the event stream again? Otherwise you have
to duplicate this work for every serious relayfs user anyway.
Completely abstracting the buffer management would the make whole
interface simpler and it would be a lot easier to change without breaking
everything. E.g. it would be possible to use per cpu buffers and remove
the need for different locking mechanisms, for a good tracing mechanism
it's not just important that it's lockless, but also that the cpus don't
share cache lines in the fast path. In this regard relayfs/ltt has really
still too much overhead and the complex relayfs API isn't really making it
easy to fix this.

bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.168 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site