[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081022154851.GL23060@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:48:51 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Török Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, sandmann@...mi.au.dk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Implement semaphore latency tracer
* Török Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com> wrote:
> On 2008-10-22 18:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > hm, but the most common synchronization primitive are mutexes - and
> > those are not covered by your patchset.
> >
>
> Indeed. I've seen a patch from Jason Baron to introduce tracepoints
> for mutexes, but the conclusion was that the tracepoints should be in
> lockstat instead.
>
> And if lockstat is enabled Peter Zijlstra's 'contend with points'
> patch seems to do exactly what I want to.
>
> However I think it would be useful to have (a tracepoints based?)
> latency tracker, which can be enabled/disabled at runtime, and which
> doesn't add any data to the mutex/semaphore structures. My patchset
> was a first attempt towards that, but it seems that such use of
> tracepoints is not welcome at this time?
>
> Please tell me if I should continue working on this, or if I my
> patches are designed totally on the wrong way.
i think if you hook into Peter's lockstat APIs that should give us a
pretty good tracer, with no ugliness introduced. That would be rather
interesting. Peter, do you concur?
Ingo
--
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