[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:0.091 / U:2.440 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site