[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091213095534.58051536@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:55:34 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] TTY patches for 2.6.33-git
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:58:44 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > We've had quite a bit of BKL work this merge-window. Maybe we'll
> > even get rid of it one of these days. There are "only" about 600
> > instances of "lock_kernel()" in the tree right now ;)
>
> I tend to use unlock_kernel() as the metric. (as it's more precisely
> greppable and it is also more indicative of the underlying complexity
> of locking, as it gets used more in more complex scenarios)
another metric is... how many times do we take the BKL for some
workload. (For example booting or compiling a kernel).
A counter like "BKLs-per-second" would be nice to expose
(and then we can track that number going up as a regression etc)
For me, a secondary metric would be "how many times do we depend on the
magic auto-drop/reget behavior".. also easy to build a counter for.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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