Re: [RESEND PATCH v3] tracing: Allocate mask_str buffer dynamically

2017-11-29 Thread Du, Changbin
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:12:09PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:42:45 +0800 > changbin...@intel.com wrote: > > > From: Changbin Du > > > > The default NR_CPUS can be very large, but actual possible nr_cpu_ids > > usually is very small. For my x86 distribution, the NR_CPU

Re: [RESEND PATCH v3] tracing: Allocate mask_str buffer dynamically

2017-11-29 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:42:45 +0800 changbin...@intel.com wrote: > From: Changbin Du > > The default NR_CPUS can be very large, but actual possible nr_cpu_ids > usually is very small. For my x86 distribution, the NR_CPUS is 8192 and > nr_cpu_ids is 4. About 2 pages are wasted. > > Most machines

[RESEND PATCH v3] tracing: Allocate mask_str buffer dynamically

2017-11-28 Thread changbin . du
From: Changbin Du The default NR_CPUS can be very large, but actual possible nr_cpu_ids usually is very small. For my x86 distribution, the NR_CPUS is 8192 and nr_cpu_ids is 4. About 2 pages are wasted. Most machines don't have so many CPUs, so define a array with NR_CPUS just wastes memory. So

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Allocate mask_str buffer dynamically

2017-11-20 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 21:33:23 +0800 "Du, Changbin" wrote: > Hi Steven, > Have you picked up this patch or need more polish? Thanks. > Neither. You sent this while I was traveling, and it was missed. I'll look at it tomorrow. Thanks, -- Steve

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Allocate mask_str buffer dynamically

2017-11-20 Thread Du, Changbin
Hi Steven, Have you picked up this patch or need more polish? Thanks. On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 11:28:08AM +0800, changbin...@intel.com wrote: > From: Changbin Du > > The default NR_CPUS can be very large, but actual possible nr_cpu_ids > usually is very small. For my x86 distribution, the NR_CPUS

[PATCH v3] tracing: Allocate mask_str buffer dynamically

2017-10-31 Thread changbin . du
From: Changbin Du The default NR_CPUS can be very large, but actual possible nr_cpu_ids usually is very small. For my x86 distribution, the NR_CPUS is 8192 and nr_cpu_ids is 4. About 2 pages are wasted. Most machines don't have so many CPUs, so define a array with NR_CPUS just wastes memory. So