lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Strange interaction between latencytop and the scheduler
Török Edwin wrote:
>
> Latencytop userspace tool shows latencies > 0.1 msec, thus capturing
> backtraces for latencies <0.1msec could be avoided.
> If I apply the patch below, then enabling latencytop doesn't freeze X
> when running the "10-threads doing infloop usleep(1)" test.

ok I like the idea; I would propose though to make the 0.1 msec a sysctl or something,
so that people who really care about latencies lower than that can just set that lower.
(and the tool can then read the value and use that)

> Still, I don't want to loose track of the latencies we didn't collect
> backtraces for, so I added a special "untraced" category, reported as
> first line in /proc/latency_stats. If needed, instead of hardcoding the
> threshold, it could be made a sysctl, or set via writing to
> /proc/latency_stats,...

yeah for the total it makes sense; I'll do the sysctl thing for the threshold
and integrate this idea as well. Thanks a lot!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-24 16:47    [W:0.060 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site