Re: [RFC] Large scale kernel performance recording

Keith Owens wrote: > > Sigh. Why do you always spot the typos *after* pressing send? > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:07:02 +1000, > Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > copy_desired_counter_values() > > { > >volatile int *p_flag = /* address of flag for desired cpu */; > >volatile __

Re: [RFC] Large scale kernel performance recording

Sigh. Why do you always spot the typos *after* pressing send? On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:07:02 +1000, Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > copy_desired_counter_values() > { >volatile int *p_flag = /* address of flag for desired cpu */; >volatile __s64 *p_counter = /* address of counte

Re: [RFC] Large scale kernel performance recording

Keith Owens wrote: > > All counters are 64 bit, 4 Gb is not enough for everybody. This raises > its own problem, some architectures do not have atomic reads, writes or > increments for 64 bit fields but must treat them as 2 32 bit words. > This race exists. > > user space:kernel >

[RFC] Large scale kernel performance recording

Consider the set of machines that have large numbers of cpus and which want large scale kernel performance reporting. Basically large server boxes or number crunchers; this note does not apply to a 486 firewall running LRP. Reading performance data for large machines or large numbers of counters