[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D70B3E1.8020108@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:41:53 +0900
From: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, h.mitake@...il.com,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf lock: clean the options for perf record
On 03/01/11 23:55, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 02:10:30AM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
>> It seems that I was too preprocessed with the method and
>> forgot the purpose...
>>
>> Maybe the things like simple lockstat visualizer or
>> special diff between two lockstat snapshots are
>> useful for the first looking at big picture.
>> I feel that they have worth to write and test.
>
> Indeed they sound like good ideas. Being able to do a diff
> on locks profiles would be useful to compare two changes on
> the kernel.
>
BTW, how do you think about the idea of exporting data in
python (or other neutral) expression from procfs? I feel it is a
good idea. Communicating with unified format between user space and
kernel space will reduce lots of parsing overhead. Is this too
aggressive or insane?
--
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