[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 1/3] Trace code and documentation
    "David J. Wilder" <> writes:
    > @@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
    > +Trace Setup and Control
    > +=======================
    > +In the kernel, the trace interface provides a simple mechanism for
    > +starting and managing data channels (traces) to user space.

    Wasn't relayfs supposed to do that already? Why do you need another
    wrapper around it?

    Is this also really still faster than a printk below log level
    (without console driver overhead). If not then why not just
    use printk?

    Especially your example is worrying. It essentially defines a new
    printk. I think there is a case for a fast logging subsystem because
    printk() is admittedly a little slow [somewhat slow below log level
    and incredible slow above it]

    But fast means binary items (not sprintf), no global locks, not
    multiple layers, per CPU etc.. But your example and this patch has all
    this and I bet it is not very fast.

    Is the result (e.g. the trace example module) still any faster
    than printk below log level? If not then why bother.

    Adding another slow logger would be just a waste of time imho.
    It just means that everybody who needs a fast logger just need
    to reimplement their own anyways. And the people who can tolerate
    slow loggers are probably already adequately served by
    printk. Also there is already direct relayfs.

    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: 2007-10-04 11:41    [W:4.334 / U:0.460 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site