Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:46:38 -0500 (EST) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: ftrace behaviour (was: [PATCH] ftrace: introduce tracing_reset_online_cpus() helper) |
| |
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:29:30 -0500 (EST) > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > I thought this was just about not having to do > > $ echo 0 > tracing_enabled > $ echo 28764243 > buffer_size > $ echo 1 > tracing_enabled > > and instead just do > > $ echo 28764243 > buffer_size > > which would do exactly the same, except being easier for the user. > Personally I've never dreamed of any kind of resize-in-flight. >
To implement this at the ftrace level should be a trivial change. I'm just saying that doing this at the "ring buffer" level might be a bit more complex. The ring buffer has no idea of ftrace. It should not. It is at a lower lever than ftrace. Although, I do think some of the protecting that is done at the tracing level during resize should be moved down into the ring buffer layer.
-- Steve
| |