Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related tolock

[Hitoshi Mitake]

On 03/19/10 05:30, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 02:49:38PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> > Unfortunately, we cannot use this detection method.
> > Because trylock series (e.g. spin_trylock()) only issues
> > lock_acquire() like this,
> >
> > static inline int __raw_spin_trylock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
> > {
> > 	preempt_disable();
> > 	if (do_raw_spin_trylock(lock)) {
> > 		spin_acquire(&lock->monitor, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);<- spin_acquire() only
> > issues lock_acquire()
> > 		return 1;
> > 	}
> > 	preempt_enable();
> > 	return 0;
> > }
> >
> > So distinguishing trylocks and lock_acquire()/lock_release() pairs from
> > might_lock_read(), might_fault() and etc is hard.
> >
> > It seems that turning off PROVE_LOCKING must be required
> > for state machine of perf lock.
>
>
> No that's really not a problem. trylocks are pointless in latency
> profiling because by definition they don't content. OTOH, they
> grab the lock and other locks might wait and raise latencies. So
> they are part of the profile. But we don't care about having the
> usual acquire/aquired/release sequence as we have the flags that
> tell us if this is a trylock.
>
> So we just need to consider that acquire:try_lock - release is
> a right lock scenario, but that acquire - release is only a lockdep
> check.

Ah, I see. The argument flags of lock_acquire event can be used for
distinguishing try or read lock and pure verifying.

Thanks,
	Hitoshi
--
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/