On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Pekka Paalanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:46:09 +0200
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Pekka Paalanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we should fix this restriction ASAP. Forcibly dropping to UP will
cause mmiotrace to be much less
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
so lets fix those preemptability bugs. They show that the
cpu-up/cpu-down ops are called from atomic context - it should normally
be straightforward to sort out - there's no particular reason why the
-open()/-close() methods of an ftrace plugin should
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:46:09 +0200
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Pekka Paalanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we should fix this restriction ASAP. Forcibly dropping to UP will
cause mmiotrace to be much less useful for diagnostic purposes of
Linux
Ok, how do you propose
* Pekka Paalanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yeah - it looks complex. Not a showstopper for now :-)
but given that Xorg is usually just a single task, do we _really_
need this?
We're not tracing Xorg at all. Mmiotrace still cannot catch accesses
originating in user space. It is
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:32:58 +0200
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Pekka Paalanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yeah - it looks complex. Not a showstopper for now :-)
but given that Xorg is usually just a single task, do we _really_
need this?
We're not tracing Xorg at
* Pekka Paalanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So i think we need to fix your automatic-cpudown/cpuup patch. I
tried that and it worked very intuitively and the cpus were
disabled/enabled without any trouble - with ftrace based mmiotrace
we now basically have something that most distros
