linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] ftrace: add max execution time mesurement to workqueue tracer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090415092629.AC1E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:31:13 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] ftrace: add max execution time mesurement to workqueue tracer

> > May I explain my expected usage scenario?
> > 
> > firstly, the developer check this stastics and nortice strage result. secondly
> > the developer monitor workqueue activety by event-tracer.
> > (it provide per work activety, maybe event filter feature is useful)
> > 
> > Yes, I have to agree my last patch description is too poor.
> > but I think my expected scenario is't so insane.
> > 
> > Next, I hope to explain why I don't choice adding per work stastics.
> > struct work can put in stack and it's short lived object.
> > then, it isn't proper "stastics" target.
> > 
> > I like my approach or histogram approach (suggested by ingo).
> > 
> > May I ask your feeling to my usage scenario?
> 
> Ok, I understand. This is a coupling of statistical tracing
> and batch raw event tracing.
> But a statistical view for every work per workqueue would
> be definetly more helpful.
> Beeing forced to look at the raw batch of work events involves
> more searching in the traces and more headaches.
> 
> With your patch, we only see the worst time case on a workqueue while
> it would be better to find all the works which are encumbering
> a workqueue, sorted by latency importance.
> 
> I agree with the fact that it's not so easy though, because the works
> can be allocated on the stack as you said.

ok.
now, We agreed my patch works enough and your proposal is better, right?
if so, we can discuss separetely per-work stastics and per-workqueue stastics.

I submitted per-workqueue stastics v3 today's later (or tomorrow).



--
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/