|
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:29:46 -0500 Pavel Roskin <proski> wrote: > Quoting Arjan van de Ven <arjan>: > > > 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. > |
