Re: ftrace behaviour (was: [PATCH] ftrace: introducetracing_reset_online_cpus() helper)

[Steven Rostedt]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Pekka Paalanen wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:29:30 -0500 (EST)
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/