> > (this is in essence a moving spinlock at the tail of the trace buffer -
> > same problem.)
>
> No, we use lock-free atomic operations to reserve a place in the buffer
> to write the data. What happens is you attempt to atomic move the
> current index pointer forward. If you succeed then you have bought
> yourself that many data words in the queue. In the unlikely event you
> happened to collide with someone you perform the atomic operation again.
you have not understood what i have written.
what you do has the same (bad) effect as a global spinlock, it in essence
has the same cache effect as a constantly moving spinlock at the 'end' of
the trace buffer. Cachelines bounce between CPUs. Only completely per-CPU
trace buffers solve this problem.
Ingo
-
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/