Message-Id: <200503100100.j2A10wg27750@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Jesse Barnes'" <jbarnes@engr.sgi.com>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@muc.de>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <axboe@suse.de>
Subject: RE: Direct io on block device has performance regression on 2.6.x kernel
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:00:58 -0800
Thread-Index: AcUlAzlX7DjlMNXJTLa0JE/pkRdAXgACNz7w
In-Reply-To: <200503091552.41450.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1218
Lines: 27

Jesse Barnes wrote on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 3:53 PM
> > "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com> writes:
> > > Just to clarify here, these data need to be taken at grain of salt. A
> > > high count in _spin_unlock_* functions do not automatically points to
> > > lock contention.  It's one of the blind spot syndrome with timer based
> > > profile on ia64.  There are some lock contentions in 2.6 kernel that
> > > we are staring at.  Please do not misinterpret the number here.
> >
> > Why don't you use oprofile?>? It uses NMIs and can profile "inside"
> > interrupt disabled sections.
>
> Oh, and there are other ways of doing interrupt off profiling by using the
> PMU.  q-tools can do this I think.

Thank you all for the suggestions.  I'm well aware of q-tools and been using
it on and off.  It's just that I don't have any data collected with q-tool
for that particular hardware/software benchmark configuration.  I posted
with whatever data I have.

- Ken


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/