[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090304114319.GA4916@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 12:43:19 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Török Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] tracing: lockdep tracepoints
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 12:23 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > ---
> > > Subject: tracing: lockdep tracepoints
> > > From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > > Date: Tue Mar 03 22:03:08 CET 2009
> > >
> > > Augment the traces with lock names when lockdep is available:
> > >
> > > 1) | down_read_trylock() {
> > > 1) | _spin_lock_irqsave() {
> > > 1) | /* lock_acquire: name: &sem->wait_lock */
> > > 1) 4.201 us | }
> > > 1) | _spin_unlock_irqrestore() {
> > > 1) | /* lock_release: name: &sem->wait_lock */
> >
> > Nice idea.
> > I would just suggest to drop the "name:" since the comment is intuitive enough
> > to figure out what we have after lock_{release,acquire}:
>
> Makes sense I guess..
>
> Here goes.. one s/name: //g later
>
> ---
> Subject: tracing: lockdep tracepoints
> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Date: Tue Mar 03 22:03:08 CET 2009
>
> Augment the traces with lock names when lockdep is available:
>
> 1) | down_read_trylock() {
> 1) | _spin_lock_irqsave() {
> 1) | /* lock_acquire: &sem->wait_lock */
> 1) 4.201 us | }
> 1) | _spin_unlock_irqrestore() {
> 1) | /* lock_release: &sem->wait_lock */
> 1) 3.523 us | }
> 1) | /* lock_acquire: try read &mm->mmap_sem */
> 1) + 13.386 us | }
very nice! :-)
> 1) 1.460 us | page_add_file_rmap();
> 1) | _spin_unlock() {
> 1) | /* lock_release: __pte_lockptr(page) */
> 1) 3.115 us | }
> 1) | unlock_page() {
> 1) 1.421 us | page_waitqueue();
> 1) 1.220 us | __wake_up_bit();
> 1) 6.519 us | }
btw., we might want to add tracepoints for
pagelock-acquire/release events too?
> +TRACE_FORMAT(lock_contended,
> + TPPROTO(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned long ip),
> + TPARGS(lock, ip),
> + TPFMT("%s", lock->name)
> + );
Would it be possible to use the C syntax tracepoints perhaps?
They are bigger:
TRACE_EVENT_FORMAT(sched_switch,
TPPROTO(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev,
struct task_struct *next),
TPARGS(rq, prev, next),
TPFMT("task %s:%d ==> %s:%d",
prev->comm, prev->pid, next->comm, next->pid),
TRACE_STRUCT(
TRACE_FIELD(pid_t, prev_pid, prev->pid)
TRACE_FIELD(int, prev_prio, prev->prio)
TRACE_FIELD_SPECIAL(char next_comm[TASK_COMM_LEN],
next_comm,
TPCMD(memcpy(TRACE_ENTRY->next_comm,
next->comm,
TASK_COMM_LEN)))
TRACE_FIELD(pid_t, next_pid, next->pid)
TRACE_FIELD(int, next_prio, next->prio)
),
TPRAWFMT("prev %d:%d ==> next %s:%d:%d")
);
but a lot faster.
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