[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220322085915.6c2e7ff9@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 08:59:15 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Radoslaw Burny <rburny@...gle.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking: Apply contention tracepoints in the slow
path
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 22:31:30 -0700
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Thanks for the info. But it's unclear to me if it provides the custom
> > event with the same or different name. Can I use both of the original
> > and the custom events at the same time?
Sorry, missed your previous question.
>
> I've read the code and understood that it's a separate event that can
> be used together. Then I think we can leave the tracepoint with the
> return value and let users customize it for their needs later.
Right, thanks for looking deeper at it.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists