[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091113084030.GA5243@nowhere>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:40:32 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Measuring term of acquiring spinlock
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 09:17:22AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Measuring term of acquiring spinlock
> > Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:39:09 +0100
> >
> > >
> > > * Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp> wrote:
> > >
> > > > * Description
> > > >
> > > > This patch makes the file spinlock_stats on top of the debugfs.
> > > > When user reads this file, some statistical data related to
> > > > spinlocks are printed.
> > >
> > > hm, are you aware of the lockstat tracepoints? They do something
> > > like this - and it utilizes perf events to report these events. See
> > > include/trace/events/lockdep.h. Needs CONFIG_LOCK_STAT enabled.
> > >
> >
> > Wow, I didn't know that. I'll try it.
>
> 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.
>
> Ingo
I have a pending patch for that somewhere. I can send it right away.
--
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