[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D7270C7.4000801@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 02:20:07 +0900
From: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf lock: clean the options for perf record
On 2011年03月04日 23:41, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 09:37:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 18:41 +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> As I mentioned in another email, I have no problem with an easy to parse
>> file. But I will aggressively NAK any "python" or other scripting
>> language. I'm sure I would get the same response if I were to have the
>> kernel outputting perl language ;)
>
> Same for me.
>
> But even before talking about that, I wonder if doing this is actually needed.
>
With analyzing lock_stat, grasping the rough trend of lock usage might
be possible. I'm imagining the tool like top, e.g. read the data from
lock_stat periodically, analyze the difference between unit time, and
print the result.
--
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