On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
quoted text
>  Seems a poor idea to me.  Sure, oprofile is "hard to set up", but not if
>  your distributor already did it for you.
>
>  Sidebar: the code uses the utterly crappy register_timer_hook() which
>
>  a) is woefully misnamed and
>
>  b) is racy and
>
>  c) will disrupt oprofile if it is being used.  And vice versa.

I wonder if sysprof should hook to the same interrupt as oprofile then?

On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
quoted text
>  This code adds a new kernel->userspace interface which is not even
>  documented in code comments.  It appears to use a pollable debugfs file in
>  /proc somewhere, carrying an unspecified payload.

[snip]

quoted text
>  This reads a single item even if there were 100 queued, which is quite
>  inefficient.
>
>  We already have infrastructure for bulk kernel->user transfer in
>  kernel/relay.c?

Agreed. This seems like a perfect fit with relayfs.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/