On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 02:04 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > > I even have preliminary (completely untested) patch, but would like to > > have this merged/acked in the first round before proceeding with porting > > ftrace to the new interface. > > > > > Also, I wonder if its worth batching up updates. For example, right now > > > we simply update each call-site one at a time even if its associated > > > with the same control variable. > > > > That does seem to make sense indeed, but it's not really closely tied to > > this patchset, is it? > > If you want to have ftrace use this interface, then we need to support > batch processing. And you will need to do it with an iterator as well. > We can not allocate 30,000 locations to run this on. Ftrace has its own > table, and uses the ftrace iterator to traverse it. > > Thus you would need to do something like:
Yup, I have been looking at the ftrace implementation and came to this conclusion; thanks for confirmation. That's exactly why I wanted to postpone converting ftrace before agreement on text_poke_bp() is reached and jump labels are converted. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
