[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1180530206.7348.83.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 15:03:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] lockstat: core infrastructure
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 13:28 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 14:52 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > + now = sched_clock();
> > + waittime = now - hlock->waittime_stamp;
> > +
>
> It looks like your using sched_clock() through out .. It's a little
> troubling considering the constraints on the function .. Most
> architecture implement a jiffies sched_clock() w/ 1 millisecond or worse
> resolution.. I'd imagine a millisecond hold time is pretty rare, even a
> millisecond wait time might be fairly rare too .. There's also no
> guarantee that sched_clock timestamps off two different cpu's can be
> compared (or at least that's my understanding) ..
All valid points, however.. calling anything more expensive 2-3 times
per lock acquisition is going to be _very_ painful.
Also, IMHO the contention count vs the acquisition count is the most
interesting number, the times are just a nice bonus (if and when they
work).
-
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