Martin Peschke wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:47 -0400, Alan D. Brunelle wrote: >> Hm, again, if the blktrace | blkiomon (direct, no blkparse) is how you >> do things, > > no, it's blktrace | blkparse | blkiomon > > Isn't blkparse needed to sort all those per-CPU traces by time? > I want this feature. The traces should come out pretty close from blktrace itself - I'm assuming you're interested in putting out statistics in multiples of seconds. Perhaps some test cases should be tried, but... > >> I would think that it would /not/ take all that much >> processing power to parse character strings. > > Anyway, it's more expensive. ... it certainly seems to me that if one could remove blkparse completely you'd save a /tremendous/ amount of CPU at the slight cost of perhaps having some off-by-a-few counts. (Meaning: You may have a few C's that you could not match up with D's (because they come out "later" from blktrace).) Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
