From: Peter Zijlstra on 19 May 2010 12:40 On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 12:27 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > OK, so I would let them evaluate separately. If they do have two > different results, then that's fine, because the view of an event could > possible be different. The &bar may change in the two instances, but how > much does that matter? Which version of &bar is correct anyway? Right, can do, but again, that sucks for filters -- I'm starting to think we never should have accepted that stuff. > How do you handle the multiple readers then? The call to record the > event copies to each buffer that is registered for that event? Yeah, each perf_event has its own buffer (usually) so we simply generate multiple events, one for each buffer. The readers, task A and B will get wakeups once in a while to empty the buffer. > If more than one buffer is attached to an event, you could also work to > directly write to one, and then copy directly from that buffer to the > others. Yeah, I mentioned this a few emails back, but since you need the keep the commit open until you've copied it the code can get quite ugly. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Optimize perf ring-buffer Next: [PATCH 0/2 v2] mc13783: LED support |