Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: add notifier for process migration

[Avi Kivity]

On 10/14/2009 06:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > We already have one event notifier there - look at the
> > perf_swcounter_event() callback. Why add a second one for essentially
> > the same thing?
> >
> > We should only put a single callback there - a tracepoint defined via
> > TRACE_EVENT() - and any secondary users can register a callback to the
> > tracepoint itself.
> >
> > There's many similar places in the kernel - with notifier chains and
> > also with a need to get tracepoints there. The fastest (and most
> > consistent) solution is to add just a single event callback facility.
> >      
> But that would basically mandate tracepoints to be always enabled, do we
> want to go there?
>
> I don't think the overhead of tracepoints is understood well enough,
> Jason you poked at that, do you have anything solid on that?
>
> Also, I can imagine the embedded people to not want that.
>
> I really like perf and tracepoints to not become co-dependent until
> tracepoint become mandatory for all configurations.
>    

It would be cleanest to have both pvclock and tracepoints select 
migration notifiers, defaulting to off.  Similarly both perf and kvm 
should use preemption notifiers (they do the same thing - switch 
per-task values into and out of cpu registers).

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
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/