Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:39:13 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Radoslaw Burny <rburny@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from
 lockdep/lock_stat (v1)
Message-ID: <20220211103913.GR23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220208184208.79303-1-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <20220209090908.GK23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAM9d7cgq+jxu6FJuKhZkprn7dO4DiG5pDjmYZzneQYTfKOM85g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YgTXUQ9CBoo3+A+c@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAM9d7cgPFLjQyopX04MwG6Leq6DwDJF2q6BxOL_Nw6J2LEZF4g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAM9d7cgPFLjQyopX04MwG6Leq6DwDJF2q6BxOL_Nw6J2LEZF4g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 09:55:27PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:

> So you are ok with adding two new tracepoints, even if they are
> similar to what we already have in lockdep/lock_stat, right?

Yeah, I don't think adding tracepoints to the slowpaths of the various
locks should be a problem.