[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9D2C22909C6E774EBFB8B5583AE5291C01A4FB7D@fmsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:25:46 -0800
From: "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
To: "Bill Huey \(hui\)" <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Daniel Walker" <dwalker@...sta.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] lock stat for -rt 2.6.20-rc2-rt2.2.lock_stat.patch
Bill Huey (hui) wrote:
>
> Good to know that. What did the output reveal ?
>
> What's your intended use again summarized ? futex contention ? I'll
> read the first posting again.
>
Earlier I used latency_trace and figured that there was read contention
on mm->mmap_sem during call to _rt_down_read by java threads
when I was running volanomark. That caused the slowdown of the rt
kernel
compared to non-rt kernel. The output from lock_stat confirm
that mm->map_sem was indeed the most heavily contended lock.
Tim
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists