[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] perf lock: Fix output of tracing lock events
Sorry for my slow response...

>> diff --git a/include/trace/events/lock.h b/include/trace/events/lock.h
>> index a870ba1..2f94e25 100644
>> --- a/include/trace/events/lock.h
>> +++ b/include/trace/events/lock.h
>> @@ -18,16 +18,19 @@ TRACE_EVENT(lock_acquire,
>>       TP_ARGS(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check, next_lock, ip),
>>       TP_STRUCT__entry(
>> +             __field(struct lockdep_map *, lockdep_addr)
>>               __field(unsigned int, flags)
>>               __string(name, lock->name)
>>       ),
> I feel a bit awkward explicitly leaking kernel pointers like that. All
> this is accessible by root only (for now) so its not too harmfull, but
> sitll.
> Also, I don't think we want to expose the struct lockdep_map thing, a
> regular void * would be better.

Yeah, I agree with it. void * is enough.

> As to removing the waittime, I'm not sure, in this case, yes, but if you
> want some other processing that hooks straight into the tracepoints
> instead of using a logging structure, it might be useful.
> Removing that do_div() from there and exposing waittime as u64 in nsec,
> for sure, that do_div() is just silly.

I was too egoist. perf lock is not an only one user of lock events.

And I have a suggestion. Adding name of source files and lines of
lock instances may be good thing for human's readability.
How do you think?

I have some pending works for these (not made into patches).
If you agree, I'll send these later.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-26 14:53    [W:0.116 / U:48.304 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site