linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] Adding information of counts processes acquired how many spinlocks to schedstat

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:38:04 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Adding information of counts processes acquired how many spinlocks to schedstat

Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I wrote a test patch which add information of counts processes acquired how many spinlocks to schedstat.
> After applied this patch, /proc/<PID>/sched will change like this,

The problem is that spinlocks are very common and schedstats is enabled commonly
in production kernels. You would need to demonstrate that such a change doesn't
have significant performance impact. For me it looks like it has.

Also I'm not sure exactly what good such a metric is. Do you have 
a concrete use case?

The normal way to check for lock contention or lock bouncingis to
simply profile cycles or time and see if there is a lot of CPU time in
locks.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/