[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220211103913.GR23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:39:13 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Radoslaw Burny <rburny@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>, cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from
lockdep/lock_stat (v1)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 09:55:27PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> So you are ok with adding two new tracepoints, even if they are
> similar to what we already have in lockdep/lock_stat, right?
Yeah, I don't think adding tracepoints to the slowpaths of the various
locks should be a problem.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists