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
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
* 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
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 spi
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
> Andrew is not so much interested in these changes as the lockmeter patch is
> not in -mm.
> --
> Ray Bryant
> AMD Performance Labs Austin, Tx
> 512-602-0038 (o) 512-507-7807 (c)
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "uns
ddress change: my current email address is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew is not so much interested in these changes as the lockmeter patch is
not in -mm.
--
Ray Bryant
AMD Performance Labs Austin, Tx
512-602-0038 (o) 512-507-7807 (c)
-
To unsubscribe from this list
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 ha
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 -Nraup linux/include/linux/lockmeter.h
linux.lockmeter/include/linux/lockme
13 matches
Mail list logo
