lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/11] tracing/perf: Fix lock events recursions in the fast path
    From
    Date
    On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 12:40 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:24:02PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 12:12 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > >
    > > > That said, I think this is good for a first step, but we can't continue
    > > > to force the lock events -> lockdep dependency in the long term. We
    > > > can't have a serious lock profiling if we are doomed to suffer the
    > > > slowness due to lockdep checks at the same time.
    > > >
    > > > Sure we can continue to support having both, but I think we should also
    > > > think about a solution to handle lock events without it in the future.
    > > > That will require some minimal lockdep functionalities (keeping the
    > > > lockdep map, and class hashes).
    > >
    > > You mean like building without CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, or boot with
    > > lockdep.prove_locking=0, or use echo 0
    > > > /sys/modules/lockdep/prove_locking ?
    > >
    > > That keeps the lock tracking but does away with all the dependency
    > > analysis and was created for just such an use case as you are looking
    > > at, namely lockstat.
    >
    >
    > Looks pretty what I'm looking for. Except that it still continues
    > to fill and keep track of the locks held by the current thread,
    > namely the copies in curr->held_locks.

    Which is exactly what you need for that lock hierarchy recording you
    wanted :-)



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-02-06 15:21    [W:0.024 / U:0.596 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site