lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] Implement semaphore latency tracer

    * Török Edwin <edwintorok@gmail.com> wrote:

    > On 2008-10-22 18:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > hm, but the most common synchronization primitive are mutexes - and
    > > those are not covered by your patchset.
    > >
    >
    > Indeed. I've seen a patch from Jason Baron to introduce tracepoints
    > for mutexes, but the conclusion was that the tracepoints should be in
    > lockstat instead.
    >
    > And if lockstat is enabled Peter Zijlstra's 'contend with points'
    > patch seems to do exactly what I want to.
    >
    > However I think it would be useful to have (a tracepoints based?)
    > latency tracker, which can be enabled/disabled at runtime, and which
    > doesn't add any data to the mutex/semaphore structures. My patchset
    > was a first attempt towards that, but it seems that such use of
    > tracepoints is not welcome at this time?
    >
    > Please tell me if I should continue working on this, or if I my
    > patches are designed totally on the wrong way.

    i think if you hook into Peter's lockstat APIs that should give us a
    pretty good tracer, with no ugliness introduced. That would be rather
    interesting. Peter, do you concur?

    Ingo
    --
    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: 2008-10-22 17:51    [W:7.444 / U:0.040 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site