On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:29:46 -0500
Pavel Roskin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>:
>
> > if it's just for a custom case (as it sounds like).. a simple small
> > change to the pagefault handler sounds like the easiest thing to
> > do... (eg just a direct function call to what would have been your
> > notifier)
>
> Thanks! Actually, the idea is to make it easy many people to run
> the trace without having them to patch or downgrade their kernels.
> Also, it would be convenient for ath5k developers to run (and
> perhaps improve) the trace on the current development kernel.
>
> Also, the code was lifted from some nvidia debugging tool, so the
> improved code could be contributed back there.
>
> I guess if there is no simple answer, I'll have to try a few crazy
> ideas. If nothing works, the fault handler chain could be
> reinstated, perhaps as a separate configuration option.
a generic "IO trace" function (as config
option) sounds actually like a good idea... that could do a direct call
if the config option is enabled (as well as some sysctl thing I
suspect, so that you can turn it on and off as you want)... I would
entirely support one of those going to mainline.
The problem with a chain is that those are quite expensive to run, and
page faults should really be a fast operation... so the normal case
should be a light as possible.
>
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use [email protected]
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
-
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]
