On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is "hard to set up", but not if > your distributor already did it for you. > > Sidebar: the code uses the utterly crappy register_timer_hook() which > > a) is woefully misnamed and > > b) is racy and > > c) will disrupt oprofile if it is being used. And vice versa.
I wonder if sysprof should hook to the same interrupt as oprofile then? On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This code adds a new kernel->userspace interface which is not even > documented in code comments. It appears to use a pollable debugfs file in > /proc somewhere, carrying an unspecified payload. [snip] > This reads a single item even if there were 100 queued, which is quite > inefficient. > > We already have infrastructure for bulk kernel->user transfer in > kernel/relay.c? Agreed. This seems like a perfect fit with relayfs. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
