Re: [ltt-dev] [PATCH/RFC] Significantly reworked LTT core

[Karim Yaghmour]

Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> I think this one needs more thinking ... I did think about adding such a
> hook, but I didn't like the idea of it, it just seems unclean. After all
> the problem is limited to a very small subset of events, namely NMIs and
> page fault traps. One thing I was thinking about is that in both these
> cases there's always an entry event and an exit event. ltt_mux could then
> coordinate using these events. IOW, if it just got an NMI entry, it
> doesn't allow any other event to get logged until it sees the NMI exit
> go by ... same for page faults. By doing this, we can just keep just one
> hook: ltt_mux. Right?

Brain was slow this morning. What we're trying to do is to avoid getting
those very NMIs and page faults into the logging path if we're already
in that path ... That's different from what my brain came up with this
morning. We may need that hook after all ... something like:

if (ltt_post)
	ltt_post(...);

Karim
-- 
Author, Speaker, Developer, Consultant
Pushing Embedded and Real-Time Linux Systems Beyond the Limits
http://www.opersys.com || karim@xxxxxxxxxxx || 1-866-677-4546
-
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/