Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "tracebuffer".
Did you mean:
trace_buffer
2005 Oct 25
5
unconditionally enable the trace buffer
Last month Mark Williamson sent out a patch to unconditionally enable
the trace buffer. I''d like to suggest that his patch be accepted and
merged. I have performed some simple benchmarks to quantify the overhead
associated with the trace buffer and calls, and found a negligable
performance loss due to them. The actual number was .069%, and was
gotten by timing a simple cpu-intensive
2007 Apr 18
2
xen merge tree broken?
Is the current xen-merge tree supposed to work? I tried to use
it as a 64bit dom0 with a recent xen-unstable hypervisor,
and it didn't get farther than "Disabling xen tracebuffers"
Didn't look too closely at the problem so far.
It also didn't build with a separate objdir.
-Andi
2007 Apr 18
2
xen merge tree broken?
Is the current xen-merge tree supposed to work? I tried to use
it as a 64bit dom0 with a recent xen-unstable hypervisor,
and it didn't get farther than "Disabling xen tracebuffers"
Didn't look too closely at the problem so far.
It also didn't build with a separate objdir.
-Andi
2010 Dec 14
0
trace_var per hypercall
For my debugging pleasure I have added another domctrl to call trace_var
from xc_save. That works as expected.
However, it adds additional pressure on the tracebuffer because each
hypercall is traced as well. My question is:
Would an additional domctrl (or whatever), or another trace hypercall be
acceptable? Another hypercall would at least have a chance to be ignored
by trace_hypercall() without poking into other hypercalls internals.
Olaf
________________...