Re: [PATCH 0/4] lock stat for 2.6.19-rt1

2006-12-04 Thread hui
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 09:08:56AM -0800, Bill Huey wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:21:29PM +0100, bert hubert wrote: > > How tightly is your work bound to -rt? Iow, any chance of separating the > > two? Or should we even want to? > > There's other uses for it as well. Think about RCU algorith

Re: [PATCH 0/4] lock stat for 2.6.19-rt1

2006-12-04 Thread hui
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:21:29PM +0100, bert hubert wrote: > On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 05:53:23PM -0800, Bill Huey wrote: > > > [8264, 996648, 0] {inode_init_once, fs/inode.c, 196} > > [8552, 996648, 0] {inode_init_once, fs/inode.c, 193} > > Impressive, Bill! > > How tightly

Re: [PATCH 0/4] lock stat for 2.6.19-rt1

2006-12-04 Thread bert hubert
On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 05:53:23PM -0800, Bill Huey wrote: > [8264, 996648, 0] {inode_init_once, fs/inode.c, 196} > [8552, 996648, 0] {inode_init_once, fs/inode.c, 193} Impressive, Bill! How tightly is your work bound to -rt? Iow, any chance of separating the two? Or shou

[PATCH 0/4] lock stat for 2.6.19-rt1

2006-12-03 Thread hui
Hello, I'm please to announce the "lock stat" patch which instruments all locks in the kernel tracking contention against the slow path of an a rt_mutex in -rt kernels before blocking and possibly priority inheritence boosting. This is for 2.6.19-rt1. In the real time patch, all locks such as a m