Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:48:51 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |