Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:38:04 +0900 (JST) | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] Measuring term of acquiring spinlock | From | Hitoshi Mitake <> |
| |
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Measuring term of acquiring spinlock Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:21:38 +0100
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:20:11AM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > > > Thanks :) > > > I haven't started it yet, because of some other things I need to finish. > > > > > > Would you be interested in starting it? > > > > Yes, I'm very interested in it! > > > > Great! > > > > > Such a tool would be very useful to profile the kernel locking. > > > > > > It would be nice to use design close to what perf sched does: > > > having an lock event structure that provides callbacks for each > > > lock events so that we can easily plug various plugin inside. > > > > > > It's just a suggestion in case you are interested and have time > > > for that. Otherwise I'll do it later. > > > > > > Hm? > > > > I'd like to do that. > > But I'm an only newbie, so it may take a week (or more). > > > Don't worry about that. Take your time. > > > > So If you finish this work, please post and disregard me :) > > > No if you take it I won't start a concurrent work. > > Don't hesitate if you have questions. This will be the first tool > (at least that I'm aware of) that post-processes the lock > event so you may encounter weird things, missing events, > unappropriate sequences, or any bad things we haven't yet seen.
Thanks. Of course, I'll not hesitate at questioning :)
> > And don't forget to use -M on perf record to record > the lock events so that you have them multiplexed across cpus > and hence well ordered wrt time. If later we need something that > scales better, we can still drop the use of -M and do the reordering > from userspace.
Thanks for your advice! I'll do my best.
| |