[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090120150408.GD21931@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:04:08 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Kevin Shanahan <kmshanah@...b.org.au>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Kevin Shanahan <kmshanah@...xo.wumi.org.au>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Bug #12465] KVM guests stalling on 2.6.28 (bisected)
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Another test would be to build the scheduler latency tracer into your
> > kernel:
> >
> > CONFIG_SCHED_TRACER=y
> >
> > And enable it via:
> >
> > echo wakeup > /debug/tracing/current_tracer
> >
> > and you should be seeing the worst-case scheduling latency traces in
> > /debug/tracing/trace, and the largest observed latency will be in
> > /debug/tracing/tracing_max_latency [in microseconds].
>
> Note, the wakeup latency only tests realtime threads, since other
> threads can have other issues for wakeup. I could change the wakeup
> tracer as wakeup_rt, and make a new "wakeup" that tests all threads, but
> it may be difficult to get something accurate.
hm, that's a significant regression then. The latency tracer used to
measure the highest-prio task in the system - be that RT or non-rt.
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