[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to lock
    On 03/17/10 18:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Frederic Weisbecker<> wrote:
    >>> You add chained indirect calls into all lock ops, that's got to hurt.
    >> Well, the idea was not bad at the first glance. It was separating
    >> and lock events codes.
    >> But indeed, the indirect calls plus the locking are not good for
    such a fast
    >> path.
    > What would be nice to have is some sort of dynamic patching approach
    to enable
    > _both_ lockdep, lockstat and perf lock.
    > If TRACE_EVENT() tracepoints were patchable we could use them. (but
    they arent
    > right now)

    I'll try it!

    And I have a question related to this dynamic patching approach for lockdep.
    If dynamic proving turning on/off is provided,
    lockdep will be confused by inconsistency of lock acquiring log.

    Will the sequence,

    lock_acquire(l) -> turning off -> lock_release(l) -> turning on ->

    detected as double acquiring?

    Should turning on/off lockdep be done in the time
    when every processes have no lock?

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-03-18 07:01    [W:0.022 / U:1.992 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site