Re: [RFC/Requirements/Design] h/w error reporting

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 18:48 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > Yep. The obvious direction is to extend the event buffering ABI we already have, 
> > with whatever additions that are needed:
> > 
> >  - document that we already support flight recorder mode
> 
> I thought this was still broken?

Please document that as well.

> >  - a more compressed record format
> > 
> >  - NOP filler events up to page boundary, for better splice and for better flight 
> >    recorder
> > 
> >  - splice support
> > 
> > etc. That's how it evolved until now and it's all very extensible.
> > 
> > Steve, could you please list the additions you have in mind, in order of priority?
> 
> A few of things that pop up quickly are:
> 
> 1) lockless
> 
> 2) as-fast-as possible
> 
> 3) support all tasks / all CPUs and still have as-fast-as-possible

Yeah - that's a self-evident goal for just about any kernel code.

	Ingo
--
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/