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]

Message-ID: <20080119052709.GA28467@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:27:09 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	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

> yes indeed; I sort of use the same infrastructure inside the scheduler; the 
> biggest
> reason I felt I had to do something different was that I wanted to do per 
> process
> data collection, so that you can see for a specific process what was going 
> on.

Wouldn't it have been easier then to just extend the sleep profiler to
oprofile? oprofile already has pid filters and can do per process 
profiling.

On the other hand I'm not fully sure only doing per pid profiling
is that useful. After all often latencies come from asynchronous
threads (like kblockd). So a system level view is probably better
anyways. 

-Andi
--
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/