[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:0.048 / U:20.668 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site