[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1265016069.24455.107.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:21:09 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Lock dependency based tree report in perf lock
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 02:23 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 09:46:28AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 00:17 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, that's just an idea, not trivial I must admit.
> >
> > lockdep actually collects all this information, so writing it out isn't
> > too hard.
>
>
> Hmm, I'm discovering the /proc/lock_stat file this evening, did not
> know it exist :)
>
> Still, a tree representation can bring another dimension.
current->held_locks[i]->instance, i < current->lock_depth
--
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