[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1224192879.16038.82.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:34:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, compudj@...stal.dyndns.org,
fche@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com, edwintorok@...il.com,
mingo@...e.hu, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: tracepoints for kernel/mutex.c
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 17:04 -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> Below are 3 tracepoints I've been playing with in kernel/mutex.c using
> a SystemTap script. The idea is to detect and determine the cause of
> lock contention. Currently I get the following output:
>
> <contended mutex nam> <process name and pid of the contention> <time of
> contention> <pid that woke me up(caused the contention?)>
> I think this approach has a number of advantages. It has low
> overhead in the off case, since its based on tracepoints. It is
> minimally invasive in the code path (3 tracepoints). It also allows me
> to explore data structures and parts of the kernel by simply modifying
> the SystemTap script. I do not need to re-compile the kernel and reboot.
*sigh* this is why I hate markers and all related things...
_IFF_ you want to place tracepoints, get them in the same place as the
lock-dep/stat hooks, that way you get all the locks, not only mutexes.
This is the same reason I absolutely _hate_ Edwin's rwsem tracer.
Folks, lets please start by getting the tracing infrastructure in and
those few high-level trace-points google proposed.
Until we get the basics in, I think I'm going to NAK any and all
tracepoint/marker patches.
--
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