[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.6.11-rc1-mm1
    On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 20:25 -0500, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
    > Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > You have previously demonstrated that you do not understand the
    > implementation you are criticizing. You keep repeating the size
    > of the patch like a mantra, yet when pressed for actual bits of
    > code that need fixing, you use a circular argument to slip away.

    Yeah, did you answer one of my arguments except claiming that I'm to
    stupid to understand how it works ?

    I completely understand what this code does and I don't beat on the
    patch size. I beat on the timing burden and restrictions which are given
    by the implementation.

    I have no objection against relayfs itself. I can just leave the config
    switch off, so it does not affect me.

    Adding instrumentation to the kernel is a good thing.

    I just dont like the idea, that instrumentation is bound on relayfs and
    adds a feature to the kernel which fits for a restricted set of problems
    rather than providing a generic optimized instrumentation framework,
    where one can use relayfs as a backend, if it fits his needs. Making
    this less glued together leaves the possibility to use other backends.

    > If you feel that there is some unncessary processing being done
    > in the kernel, please show me the piece of code affected so that
    > it can be fixed if it is broken.

    Just doing codepath analysis shows me:

    There is a loop in ltt_log_event, which enforces the processing of each
    event twice. Spliting traces is postprocessing and can be done

    In _ltt_log_event lives quite a bunch of if(...) processing decisions
    which have to be evaluated for _each_ event.

    The relay_reserve code can loop in the do { } while() and even go into a
    slow path where another do { } while() is found.
    So it can not be used in fast paths and for timing related problem
    tracking, because it adds variable time overhead.

    Due to the fact, that the ltt_log_event path is not preempt safe you can
    actually hit the additional go in the do { } while() loop.

    I pointed out before, that it is not possible to selectively select the
    events which I'm interested in during compile time. I get either nothing
    or everything. If I want to use instrumentation for a particular
    problem, why must I process a loop of _ltt_log_event calls for stuff I
    do not need instead of just compiling it away ?

    If I compile a event in, then adding a couple of checks into the
    instrumentation macro itself does not hurt as much as leaving the
    straight code path for a disabled event.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.030 / U:15.336 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site