[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090225095814.GC12352@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:58:14 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>
Cc: "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:tracing/hw-branch-tracing] tracing/hw-branch-tracing:
convert bts-tracer mutex to a spinlock
* Metzger, Markus T <markus.t.metzger@...el.com> wrote:
> > static void trace_bts_prepare(struct trace_iterator *iter)
> > {
> >- mutex_lock(&bts_tracer_mutex);
> >+ spin_lock(&bts_tracer_lock);
> >
> > on_each_cpu(trace_bts_cpu, iter->tr, 1);
> >
> >- mutex_unlock(&bts_tracer_mutex);
> >+ spin_unlock(&bts_tracer_lock);
> > }
>
> Whereas start/stop are relatively fast, the above operation is
> rather expensive. Would it make sense to use
> schedule_on_each_cpu() instead of on_each_cpu()?
it's perfectly fine to do that on_each_cpu() under the spinlock.
schedule_on_each_cpu() would likely be more expensive - and for
no good reason.
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