Subject: Re: lockmeter
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@mbligh.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20070128170407.GA1526@infradead.org>
References: <20070128115118.837777000@programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <20070128144325.GB16552@infradead.org> <20070128152404.GB9196@elte.hu>
	 <45BCD4C9.2030302@mbligh.org>  <20070128170407.GA1526@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Intel International BV
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:08:56 +0800
Message-Id: <1170032936.3054.2.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 850
Lines: 19

On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 17:04 +0000, 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
> > of line again to test this fairly easily (or get lockmeter upstream).
> 
> We definitly should get lockmeter in.  Does anyone volunteer for doing
> the cleanup and merged?

specifically; implementing it on top of lockdep should be very lean and
simple...


-
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/