[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081127145102.GC4672@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:51:02 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Török Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, srostedt@...hat.com,
sandmann@...mi.au.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing: identify which executable object the
userspace address belongs to
* Török Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com> wrote:
> Thanks. I can move on to the lock latency tracing ;)
that's a bit more contentious ...
> I'll send out a draft of tracepoints that I would need to trace lock
> latency. I'll try to put them in same place as lockstat (but not
> necesarely depending on lockstat being enabled).
> Or I could add the tracepoints inside lockstat (now that it has
> contend with points feature), and use the information already
> gathered by lockstat, but augment it with finer grained counts per
> kernel/user stacktrace. (again there would be an ftrace plugin that
> would register with the tracepoints, and show the per stacktrace
> statistic in /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace).
yes. The less intrusive your patch is, the more you utilize and
generalize existing facilities, the better. You could split the
Kconfig of LOCKSTAT into two bits: LOCKSTAT (core) and LOCKSTAT_PROC,
where the proc bits are enabled separately.
Your tracing approach could then reuse much of core LOCKSTAT (without
even touching the code) and just plain "select LOCKSTAT" - without
creating /proc/lockdep_stats.
Peter, what do you think?
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