From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, h.mitake@gmail.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] perf lock: Add new event "lock_acquired_waittime" for contention analysis
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:00:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1280822440.1923.403.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C57C72C.3070902@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 16:37 +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> But, I believe that
> - lock validation
> - lock tracing
> - in kernel light weight lock usage statistics
> should be divided into individual features, at least.
> And tracing and statistics should be available for production kernel,
> ideally.
>
> How do you think about this point?
Both the lock usage and lock validation use the lock classification
scheme and thus require the bloated lock structures, and hence I don't
think its at all reasonable to do that runtime.
lock tracing could possibly be done by patching all lock sites, but we'd
have to be somewhat careful there too not to make the whole spinlock
code even worse than it already is.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-03 8:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-24 16:55 Hitoshi Mitake
2010-07-28 16:39 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-08-01 5:36 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-08-01 7:56 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-08-02 12:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-03 7:37 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-08-03 8:00 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1280822440.1923.403.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=h.mitake@gmail.com \
--cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®