On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 22:11:45 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes, we don't want to get rid of the old one. But it shouldn't break > > anything if we extend it. I'm thinking of extending it with a dynamic > > array to store the deadline task values (runtime, period). And for non > > deadline tasks, the array would be empty (size zero). I think that > > could be doable and maintain backward compatibility. > > Why the complexity? Why not just tack those 32 bytes on and get on with > life? 32 bytes that are zero and meaningless for 99.999% of scheduling? The scheduling tracepoint is probably the most common tracepoint used, and one of the frequent ones. 32bytes of wasted space per event can cause a lot of tracing to be missed. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
