lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PATCH] TTY patches for 2.6.33-git
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:58:44 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

>
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > We've had quite a bit of BKL work this merge-window. Maybe we'll
> > even get rid of it one of these days. There are "only" about 600
> > instances of "lock_kernel()" in the tree right now ;)
>
> I tend to use unlock_kernel() as the metric. (as it's more precisely
> greppable and it is also more indicative of the underlying complexity
> of locking, as it gets used more in more complex scenarios)

another metric is... how many times do we take the BKL for some
workload. (For example booting or compiling a kernel).
A counter like "BKLs-per-second" would be nice to expose
(and then we can track that number going up as a regression etc)

For me, a secondary metric would be "how many times do we depend on the
magic auto-drop/reget behavior".. also easy to build a counter for.

--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-13 18:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site