[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Instrumenting high latency
    Martin J. Bligh wrote:
    >>Because of the recent discussion about latency in the kernel I asked
    >>William Lee Irwin III to help create some instrumentation to determine
    >>where in the kernel there were still sustained periods of non-preemptible
    >>code. He hacked together this simple patch which times periods according
    >>to the preempt count. Hopefully we can use this patch in the advice of
    >>Linus to avoid the "mental masturbation" at guessing where latency is
    >>and track down real problem areas.
    > Is this much different from Rick's schedstat's work, which was itself based
    > on some earlier patches by Bill? I'd hate to end up with two sets of patches,
    > and schedstats seemed pretty comprehensive to me. He's on vacation, but his
    > stuff is here, if you want to take a look:

    No I remember his work and this is tackling it via a different area if I
    recall correctly. He was looking at scheduler latencies as opposed to
    non-preemptible kernel code.

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.020 / U:5.440 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site