lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2/3] Latencytop instrumentations part 1
Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 02:33:34PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Can you suggest of some reason why all this instrumentation could
>>> not be in the form of standard markers (perhaps conditionally
>>> compiled out if necessary)?
>> sure. Every instrumentation you see is of the nested kind (since the lowest level
>> of nesting is already automatic via wchan).
>> If markers can provide me the following semantics, I'd be MORE than happy to use markers:
>> [...]
>> If markers can provide that semantics ... you sold me.
>
> Further to what acme said, markers are semantics-free. Callback
> functions that implement your entry & exit semantics can be attached
> at run time, at your pleasure. (So can systemtap probes, for that
> matter.) The main difference would be that these callback functions
> would have manage the per-thread LIFO data structures themselves,
> instead of allocating backpointers on the kernel stack. (Bonus marks
> for not modifying task_struct. :-)

modifying task struct to have storage space is no big deal...


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-19 00:23    [W:0.047 / U:2.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site