Re: Receive side performance issue with multi-10-GigE and NUMA

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > 
> > I'm not sure how the addition of an ftrace module constitutes a change to the
> > tracing infrastructure, but whatever, yes, no biggy.  I've bugun modifying the
> > TRACE_EVENT that I added to export the data I need directly.  Should be pretty
> > straightforward.  Dave I'll have a patch up on netdev in a day or two after I
> > test it.  Steven, should this still just go to netdev with a cc to you?  I'd
> > like to avoid repeating the same confusion here a second time around if I can
> 
> Yes, please Cc myself, and Ingo on those changes. I see where the 
> confusion came. It is where the code changes. The code in 
> kernel/trace is considered ftrace internals (there's internal 
> tracing upkeep that is needed for all plugins). [...]

yeah - i pointed that out in the very first mail to David 9 days ago 
when this patch broke the build in linux-next: kernel/trace/ is like 
net/core/. It would be nice and important if the networking tree 
treated it as such in the future.
 
See the:

  [PATCH -next] trace_skb: fix build when CONFIG_NET is not enabled

discussion on lkml:

  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/17/378

Thanks,

	Ingo