linux-kernel - Re: [Announce] Development release 0.1 of the LatencyTOP tool

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:	Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:46:22 +0100
From:	Roberto Fichera <kernel@...no-soft.it>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Announce] Development release 0.1 of the LatencyTOP tool

At 19.35 18/01/2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>Roberto Fichera wrote:
>> At 18.36 18/01/2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>> The Intel Open Source Technology Center is pleased to announce the
>>> release of version 0.1 of LatencyTOP, a tool for developers to visualize
>>> system latencies.
>>>
>>> http://www.latencytop.org
>>>
>> 
>> [...snip...]
>> 
>>> The most basic annotation looks like this (in the patches more complex
>>> versions can be seen):
>>>
>>>  asmlinkage long sys_sync(void)
>>>  {
>>> +       struct latency_entry reason;
>>> +       set_latency_reason("sync system call", &reason);
>>>         do_sync(1);
>>> +       restore_latency_reason(&reason);
>>> +
>>>         return 0;
>>>  }
>>>
>> 
>> I really like this patch :-)! Just a little note, why don't make 
>> the parameter 'char *reason' as simple integer (reason_t)? 
>> Making it as integer will automatically drop the strncmp() 
>> and speeding up all the things. Could be also interesting to 
>> define _externally_ the mapping of the reason so the 
>> userspace tool could handle it easily.
>> 
>
>I thought about that, but the strncmp is still somewhat needed to deal 
>with the argument
>(the instrumentation above doesn't use that, but the mutex one does 
>for example)
>If we get rid of the argument entirely it'd be easier
>(but then we get "blocking on mutex" rather than "blocking on inode->mutex")

Duh! I didn't notice it! Now I see ;-)!

>

Roberto Fichera. 

--
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/