lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PATCH] TTY patches for 2.6.33-git
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:16:08 +0100
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 09:55:34AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:58:44 +0100
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We've had quite a bit of BKL work this merge-window. Maybe we'll
> > > > even get rid of it one of these days. There are "only" about 600
> > > > instances of "lock_kernel()" in the tree right now ;)
> > >
> > > I tend to use unlock_kernel() as the metric. (as it's more
> > > precisely greppable and it is also more indicative of the
> > > underlying complexity of locking, as it gets used more in more
> > > complex scenarios)
> >
> > another metric is... how many times do we take the BKL for some
> > workload. (For example booting or compiling a kernel).
> > A counter like "BKLs-per-second" would be nice to expose
> > (and then we can track that number going up as a regression etc)
>
>
>
> We have the bkl tracepoints for that, attaching an example below,
> blkdev_get/bkldev_put is among the highest consumer for me.

we have a trace, but not a number that anyone can just pull out without
having to go through great lengths to set stuff up... (esp to capture a
boot)...
Adding a counter always to the lock_kernel function should be fine
instead...


--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-14 06:31    [W:0.269 / U:0.652 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site