[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081002204851.1836e465@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:48:51 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
Sven Dietrich <sdietrich@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 0/5] genirq: add infrastructure for threaded
interrupt handlers
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 05:25:04 +0200
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> >
> > one of the things irq threads gives you is that 'top' will show you
> > which ones are eating cpu ;-)
>
> oprofile does that job fine already and is imho any time preferable
> for detailed analysis.
while I don't disagree that oprofile will give you more detailed
results, I think there's a HUGE difference between asking a bugreporter
"can you paste a screen of 'top'" and "can you configure and run
oprofile".
CHances are good that the user already thought of top him/herself and
just reports "interrupt X is eating CPU" rather than "something seems
to be eating CPU".
I'm not going argue that this alone is enough justification for
irqthreads, but you can't deny it's an advantage.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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