linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] Measuring term of acquiring spinlock

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: <1258100661.4039.1023.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:24:21 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	fweisbec@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Measuring term of acquiring spinlock

On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:17 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> 
> Btw., i think we should rename that tracepoint category from 'lockdep' 
> to 'lock'. It's possible to enable them without CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, 
> and they arent high-overhead in that case. 

They're still in 'lockdep', and it does still require enabling all of
the lock debugging code, so the overhead is far from zero.

--
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/