On Sun, 20 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Add lock contention tracking to lockdep
>
looks really nice to me.
To me, in addition to the number of times the lock is contended we also
need the total number of times the lock was acquired, to make the
statistics significant. I've included o
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 12:58:03PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> and nobody pushed strong enough to get it included. But ... Peter's
> patch could perhaps be extended to cover similar stats as lockmeter,
> ontop of the existing lockdep instrumentation. Peter, can you see any
> particular roadblock
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 02:46:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> which combines into this statement of yours: "I audited 1600 something
> lock points in the kernel to convert the usage of C99 style initializers
> something more regular, only to find out that there wasn't much left to
> convert ove
* Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and regarding C99 style lock initializers: the -rt project has been
> > removing a whole heap of them in the past 2.5 years, since Oct 2004
> > or so, and regularly cleansed the upstream kernel for old-style
> > initializers ever since then - so i'm n
* Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:36:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > you got the history wrong i think: the first version of lockdep was
> > released to lkml a year ago (May 2006), while the first time you
> > mentioned your lock contention patch was
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:19:46AM -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:36:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > you got the history wrong i think: the first version of lockdep was
> > released to lkml a year ago (May 2006), while the first time you
> > mentioned your lock contention
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:55:47AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:36:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > you got the history wrong i think: the first version of lockdep was
> > released to lkml a year ago (May 2006), while the first time you
> > mentioned your lock co
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:36:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> you got the history wrong i think: the first version of lockdep was
> released to lkml a year ago (May 2006), while the first time you
> mentioned your lock contention patch was November 2006 and you released
> it to lkml in December
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:36:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> you got the history wrong i think: the first version of lockdep was
> released to lkml a year ago (May 2006), while the first time you
> mentioned your lock contention patch was November 2006 and you released
> it to lkml in December
* Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I write lockstat without the knowledge that lockdep was replicating
> the same work and I audited 1600 something lock points in the kernel
> to convert the usage of C99 style initializers to something more
> regular.
you got the history wrong i think:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 09:50:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Have you looked at the output Peter's patch produces? It prints out
> precise symbols:
>
> dcache_lock: 3000 0 [618] [] _atomic_dec_and_lock+0x39/0x58
>
> which can easily be turned into line numbers using debuginfo packages or
> u
* Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:08:28AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > To me it appears Peter's stuff is already a pretty complete solution on
> > its own, and it's a whole lot simpler (and less duplicative) than your
> > lockstat patch. Could you list the spe
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:08:28AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> To me it appears Peter's stuff is already a pretty complete solution on
> its own, and it's a whole lot simpler (and less duplicative) than your
> lockstat patch. Could you list the specific items/features that you
> think Peter's st
* Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 12:30:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The 4 points are the first 4 unique callsites that cause lock contention
> > for the specified lock class.
> >
> > writing a 0 to /proc/lockdep_contentions clears the stats
>
> We should
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 12:30:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The 4 points are the first 4 unique callsites that cause lock contention
> for the specified lock class.
>
> writing a 0 to /proc/lockdep_contentions clears the stats
We should talk about unifying it with my lockstat work for -rt s
* Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Add lock contention tracking to lockdep
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cat /proc/lockdep_contentions | sort -rnk 2 | head
> dcache_lock: 3000 0 [618] [] _atomic_dec_and_lock+0x39/0x58
> [17] [] sysfs_open_file+0x28/0x25a [160]
> [] d_instantiate+0x2a/0x
Add lock contention tracking to lockdep
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cat /proc/lockdep_contentions | sort -rnk 2 | head
dcache_lock: 3000 0 [618] [] _atomic_dec_and_lock+0x39/0x58
[17] [] sysfs_open_file+0x28/0x25a [160] []
d_instantiate+0x2a/0xad [52] [] __link_path_walk+0x270/0xde9
&inode->i_mutex:
17 matches
Mail list logo
