[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150331002730.GE32033@sejong>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:27:30 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] segfault in perf-top -- thread refcnt
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:13:03PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:58:05AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > Em Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:48:52PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > > But this makes every sample processing grabs and releases the lock so
> > > might cause high overhead. It can be a problem if such processing is
> > > done parallelly like my multi-thread work. :-/
> >
> > Still untested, using rw lock, next step is auditing the
> > machine__findnew_thread users that really should be using
> > machine__find_thread, i.e. grabbing just the reader lock, and measuring
> > the overhead of using a pthread rw lock instead of pthread_mutex_t as
> > Jiri is doing.
>
> Don't bother trying it, doesn't even compile ;-\
OK. :)
But I think rw lock still has not-so-low overhead as it involves
atomic operations and cache misses.
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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