Now the dream would be detailed per spinlock counters,
unfortunately the current spinlock declaration syntax makes it hard
to name them (and for dynamic spinlocks embedded in other
structures a different way would be needed anyways than to
statically name the spinlocks - for them reading System.map doesn't
work well neither). This means for named spinlock profiling it is
needed to change all spinlock users :(:(. I believe for effective
SMP tuning in 2.3 they are definitely needed though.
Some of this is handled in the debugging spinlock implementation on
some machines. With a little hammering, and modifying the
spin_lock_init etc. callers, you could get the desired behavior I
believe.
Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/