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:0.045 / U:11.892 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site