On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 01:29:41PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:02:23 +0100 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Your ring buffer was so generic that I gave up trying to use it after > > trying for days :-( (the fundamental problem was that it was impossible > > to have a single cpu buffer; afaik that is still true today) > > Yeah, but that could have been fixed, and the only reason it's not > today, is because it requires more overhead to do so. > > IIRC, the main reason that you didn't use it then, is because it wasn't > fully lockless at the time (it is today), and you couldn't use it from > NMI context. What I remember is that I couldn't get a single cpu buffer, the whole per-cpu stuff was mangled in at the wrong layer. But who knows, my memory is faulty. > > How about we rename both? I'm a bit adverse to long names, so how about > > we rename the perf one to perf_buffer and the trace one to trace_buffer? > > I'm fine with this idea! Now what do we call the ring buffer that > tracing uses, as it is not specific for tracing, it was optimized for > splicing. But sure, I can rename it to trace_buffer. I just finished > renaming perf's... > > Thinking about this, perhaps we should remove the word "ring" from > both. That is: > > perf_buffer and trace_buffer ? That's what I just proposed, right? So ACK on that ;-)
