Re: [PATCH v6] Unified trace buffer

[Mike Travis]

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Mike Travis wrote:
> 
>> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 14:05 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>> +struct ring_buffer {
>>>> +       unsigned long           size;
>>>> +       unsigned                pages;
>>>> +       unsigned                flags;
>>>> +       int                     cpus;
>>>> +       atomic_t                record_disabled;
>>>> +
>>>> +       struct mutex            mutex;
>>>> +
>>>> +       /* FIXME: this should be online CPUS */
>>>> +       struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *buffers[NR_CPUS];
>>> actually nr_possible makes sense, and you might consider always
>>> allocating buffers (and keeping them for offlined cpus) to avoid massive
>>> allocations/frees cpu-hotplug events.
>>>
>>> Mike Travis has been going over the kernel removing constructs like
>>> this, and replacing them with dynamically allocated arrays of
>>> nr_possible.
>>>
>>>> +};
>> The other thing to consider is using a percpu variable.
> 
> This structure is allocated on request.
> 
> -- Steve


Ahh, then it would need the yet to be added cpu_alloc() from Christoph.

Your best bet then is to allocate based on nr_cpu_ids.

Cheers,
Mike
--
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/