Re: x86, ptrace: support for branch trace store(BTS)

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Metzger, Markus T <markus.t.metzger@intel.com> wrote:

> Users who want to process that huge amount of data would be better off 
> using a file-based approach (well, if it cannot be held in physical 
> memory, they will spend most of their time swapping, anyway). Those 
> users would typically wait for the 'buffer full' event and drain the 
> buffer into a file - whether this is the real buffer or a bigger 
> virtual buffer.
> 
> The two-buffer approach would only benefit users who want to hold the 
> full profile in memory - or who want to stall the debuggee until they 
> processed or somehow compressed the data collected so far. Those 
> approaches would not scale for very big profiles. The small profile 
> cases would already be covered with a reasonably big real buffer.

well, the two-buffer approach would just be a general API with no 
limitations. It would make the internal buffer mostly a pure performance 
detail.

	Ingo