| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4798B19D.2040400@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:41:17 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> To: Török Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Strange interaction between latencytop and the scheduler Török Edwin wrote: > > Latencytop userspace tool shows latencies > 0.1 msec, thus capturing > backtraces for latencies <0.1msec could be avoided. > If I apply the patch below, then enabling latencytop doesn't freeze X > when running the "10-threads doing infloop usleep(1)" test. ok I like the idea; I would propose though to make the 0.1 msec a sysctl or something, so that people who really care about latencies lower than that can just set that lower. (and the tool can then read the value and use that) > Still, I don't want to loose track of the latencies we didn't collect > backtraces for, so I added a special "untraced" category, reported as > first line in /proc/latency_stats. If needed, instead of hardcoding the > threshold, it could be made a sysctl, or set via writing to > /proc/latency_stats,... yeah for the total it makes sense; I'll do the sysctl thing for the threshold and integrate this idea as well. Thanks a lot! -- 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