[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150914214105.GH19736@linux-q0g1.site>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:41:05 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Collect slowpath lock
statistics
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Waiman Long wrote:
>You can't use debugfs if we want to have per-cpu stats. We will have
>to use sysfs instead. This will require more code changes. It is
>certainly doable, but we have to choose between simplicity and
>performance overhead. Right now, I am assuming that lock PV lockstat
>is used primarily for debugging purpose and won't be enabled on
>production system. If we want to have this capability in production
>systems, we will certainly need to change it to per-cpu stats and use
>sysfs instead.
>
>The original PV ticketlock code used debugfs and I was just following
>its footstep. Do you think it is worthwhile to have this capability
>available on production system by default?
If we can prove that the overhead is small enough, and do it correctly
(ie see how we do vmstats), it would be _very_ useful data to have
enabled by default for debugging performance issues; methinks. But right
now we have nowhere near that kind of data, not even with this atomic
variant -- although I recall you did mention a workload in a previous
iteration (which would be good to have in the changelog).
--
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