Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:11:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:11:17 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:43470 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:11:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 00:24:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Karim Yaghmour Cc: Linus Torvalds , Roman Zippel , linux-kernel , LTT-Dev Subject: Re: [PATCH] LTT for 2.5.38 1/9: Core infrastructure In-Reply-To: <3D8E3FA9.7389A61F@opersys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1116 Lines: 41 On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > > (this is in essence a moving spinlock at the tail of the trace buffer - > > same problem.) > > Hmm. No offense, but I think you ought to take a better look at the > code. i have, and i see stuff like this: + TRACE_PROCESS(TRACE_EV_PROCESS_WAKEUP, p->pid, p->state); +static inline void TRACE_PROCESS(u8 ev_id, u32 data1, u32 data2) +{ + trace_process proc_event; + + proc_event.event_sub_id = ev_id; + proc_event.event_data1 = data1; + proc_event.event_data2 = data2; + + trace_event(TRACE_EV_PROCESS, &proc_event); +} where trace_event() is defined as: +int trace_event(u8 pm_event_id, + void *pm_event_struct) [...] + read_lock(&tracer_register_lock); ie. it's using a global spinlock. (sure, it can be made lockless, as other tracers have done it.) Ingo - 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/