Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:42:00 -0800 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: Need help with register_page_fault_notifier() replacement in 2.6.24 |
| |
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:29:46 -0500 Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> wrote:
> Quoting Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>: > > > 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 arjan@linux.intel.com 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 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/
| |