linux-kernel - Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?

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: <48D88DB4.9020003@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:33:24 +0100
From:	Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> well, since they went away after you enabled CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, they are 
> definitely in-kernel latencies, not any external SMM latencies.
> 
> I.e. they are inherently fixable. Could you enable:
> 
>   CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE=y
>   CONFIG_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD=y
> 
> that should make the traces a lot more verbose - every kernel function 
> executed in the latency path will be logged. That way we'll be able to 
> say which one takes that long.

I do not appear to have the CONFIG_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD option in 
2.6.27rc7. Is it an option that is only in -tip ?

-- 
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
--
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/