Re: [PATCH 4/4] Implement semaphore latency tracer

[Ingo Molnar]

* Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 2008-10-22 18:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > hm, but the most common synchronization primitive are mutexes - and 
> > those are not covered by your patchset.
> >   
> 
> Indeed. I've seen a patch from Jason Baron to introduce tracepoints 
> for mutexes, but the conclusion was that the tracepoints should be in 
> lockstat instead.
> 
> And if lockstat is enabled Peter Zijlstra's 'contend with points' 
> patch seems to do exactly what I want to.
> 
> However I think it would be useful to have (a tracepoints based?) 
> latency tracker, which can be enabled/disabled at runtime, and which 
> doesn't add any data to the mutex/semaphore structures. My patchset 
> was a first attempt towards that, but it seems that such use of 
> tracepoints is not welcome at this time?
> 
> Please tell me if I should continue working on this, or if I my 
> patches are designed totally on the wrong way.

i think if you hook into Peter's lockstat APIs that should give us a 
pretty good tracer, with no ugliness introduced. That would be rather 
interesting. Peter, do you concur?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/