* Metzger, Markus T <[email protected]> wrote:
> Users who want to process that huge amount of data would be better off
> using a file-based approach (well, if it cannot be held in physical
> memory, they will spend most of their time swapping, anyway). Those
> users would typically wait for the 'buffer full' event and drain the
> buffer into a file - whether this is the real buffer or a bigger
> virtual buffer.
>
> The two-buffer approach would only benefit users who want to hold the
> full profile in memory - or who want to stall the debuggee until they
> processed or somehow compressed the data collected so far. Those
> approaches would not scale for very big profiles. The small profile
> cases would already be covered with a reasonably big real buffer.
well, the two-buffer approach would just be a general API with no
limitations. It would make the internal buffer mostly a pure performance
detail.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
