Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/10] jump label v11: base patch | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:14:09 -0400 |
| |
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 16:41 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > So there are ~150 tracepoints, but this code is also being proposed for > > use with 'dynamic debug' of which there are > 1000, and I'm hoping for > > more users moving forward. > > Even 1000 is fine to walk, but if it was sorted a binary search > would be much faster anyways. That is then you would still > need to search for each module, but that is a relatively small > number (< 100)
xfs has > 100 tracepoints
> > > Also, I think the hash table deals nicely with modules. > > Maybe but it's also a lot of code. And it seems to me > that it is optimizing the wrong thing. Simpler is nicer.
I guess simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. I find hashes easier to deal with than binary searching sorted lists. Every time you add a tracepoint, you need to resort the list.
Hashes are much easier to deal with and scale nicely. I don't think there's enough rational to switch this to a binary list.
-- Steve
| |