On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:27:45PM -0800, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:17:05PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > btw., while my plan is to prototype your lock-stat patch in -rt
> > initially, it should be doable to extend it to be usable with the
> > upstream kernel as well.
...
> Fa
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:17:05PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> btw., while my plan is to prototype your lock-stat patch in -rt
> initially, it should be doable to extend it to be usable with the
> upstream kernel as well.
>
> We can gather lock contention events when there is spinlock debugging
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 17:04 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:52:25AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Mmm. not wholly convinced that's true. Whilst i don't have lockmeter
stats to hand, the heavy time in __d_lookup seems to indicate we may
still ha
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 17:04 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:52:25AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > Mmm. not wholly convinced that's true. Whilst i don't have lockmeter
> > stats to hand, the heavy time in __d_lookup seems to indicate we may
> > still have a problem t
* Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My lock stat stuff shows dcache to a be a problem under -rt as well.
> It is keyed off the same mechanism as lockdep. [...]
btw., while my plan is to prototype your lock-stat patch in -rt
initially, it should be doable to extend it to be usable with the
* Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ISTR we still thought dcache scalability was a significant problem
> > last time anyone looked at it seriously - just never got fixed.
> > Dipankar?
>
> My lock stat stuff shows dcache to a be a problem under -rt as well.
> [...]
yeah, it shows up f
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:38:16AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:52:25AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >>Mmm. not wholly convinced that's true. Whilst i don't have lockmeter
> >>stats to hand, the heavy time in __d_lookup seems to indicate
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:52:25AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Mmm. not wholly convinced that's true. Whilst i don't have lockmeter
stats to hand, the heavy time in __d_lookup seems to indicate we may
still have a problem to me. I guess we could move the spinlocks out
Hi, Ray
Did you test the patch? Any updates?
I have tested the patch and no errors were found.
Thx, Xuekun
On 8/15/05, Ray Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 15 August 2005 02:35, Xuekun Hu wrote:
> > Does anyone have inputs?
> >
>
> Xuekun ,
>
> I was on vacation last week. I j
On Monday 15 August 2005 02:35, Xuekun Hu wrote:
> Does anyone have inputs?
>
Xuekun ,
I was on vacation last week. I just saw your patch yesterday. It looks
reasonable, but I will test it later today.
You should also cc John Hawkes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Also, please note my email address ch
Does anyone have inputs?
On 8/14/05, Xuekun Hu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I collected lockmeter data for a longer duration, sometimes the
> locks counter could roll over. I'm sure someone else maybe meet the
> same situation. So I wrote the below patch, could you have a look?
>
> diff -Nra
11 matches
Mail list logo
