[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110503214142.GC2678@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 23:41:45 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
David Sharp <dhsharp@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tracing: Don't call wakeup() when committing the
event
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 02:03:36PM -0700, Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> In using syscall tracing by concurrent processes, the wakeup() that is
> called in the event commit function causes contention on the spin lock
> of the waitqueue. I enabled sys_enter_getuid and sys_exit_getuid
> tracepoints, and by running getuid_microbench from autotest in parallel
> I found that the contention causes exponential latency increase in the
> tracing path.
>
> The autotest binary getuid_microbench calls getuid() in a tight loop for
> the given number of iterations and measures the average time required to
> complete a single invocation of syscall.
>
> The patch here points to the problem and provides a naive solution to
> start the discussion. It is not intended to be a definitive solution.
Right, so another solution could be to have per cpu waitqueues for
the per_cpu trace_pipe/trace_pipe_raw files, and one big for the main
trace_pipe file.
That involves two wake_up() calls but then it scales and you keep
the awakening.
--
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