[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1265371808.22001.502.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:10:08 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] tracing/perf: Fix lock events recursions in the
fast path
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 11:49 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > That said, I'm not at all happy about removing lockdep annotations to make
> > the tracer faster, that's really counter productive.
>
> Are there no dynamic techniques that could be used here?
>
> Lockdep obviously wants maximum instrumentation coverage - performance be
> damned.
>
> Lock profiling/tracing/visualization wants the minimum subset of events it is
> interested in - everything else is unnecessary overhead.
Well, they could start by moving the tracepoint inside the lockdep
recursion check.
--
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