Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:57:52 +0900 (JST) | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf lock: New subcommand "lock" to perf for analyzing lock statistics | From | Hitoshi Mitake <> |
| |
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf lock: New subcommand "lock" to perf for analyzing lock statistics Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 08:27:52 +0100
> > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:34:44PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > > > This patch adds new subcommand "lock" to perf for analyzing lock usage statistics. > > > Current perf lock is very primitive. This cannot provide the minimum functions. > > > Of course I continue to working on this. > > > But too big patch is not good thing for you, so I post this. > > > > Oh great! > > Yeah, the work can be done incrementally. > > > [...] > > > > > > Very nice and promising! > > > > I can't wait to try it. > > ok, to ease testing i've created a new (and not yet permanent) topic > tree for it to track this new perf feature: tip:perf/lock and pushed it > out. > > Note: because it's not yet in a final form i have not merged it into > tip:master yet - when you are working on these bits you need to do this > manually via: > > git merge tip/perf/lock > > Also, we might need to rebase this branch as it's WIP, so the commit IDs > are not permanent yet. But i thought it would be easier to do deltas on > this basis.
Thanks!
> > Hitoshi-san, the patches did not have a Signed-off-by line from you, can > i add them for you?
Yes of course. I didn't signed because these were too experimental things for master branch. But I can sign on these as experimental things on experimental branch.
> > Also, i agree that the performance aspect is probably the most pressing > issue. Note that 'perf bench sched messaging' is very locking intense so > a 10x slowdown is not entirely unexpected - we still ought to optimize > it all some more. 'perf lock' is an excellent testcase for this in any > case.
Yeah, as I described in my reply to Frederic, separating lockdep and lock events for perf lock might be solution for performance problem. I'll try it.
Thanks Hitoshi
| |