Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759075AbXEWV66 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 17:58:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756343AbXEWV6v (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 17:58:51 -0400 Received: from adsl-69-232-92-238.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net ([69.232.92.238]:42307 "EHLO gnuppy.monkey.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756245AbXEWV6v (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 17:58:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 14:57:56 -0700 To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jason Baron , Steven Rostedt , Christoph Hellwig , "Bill Huey (hui)" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] lock contention tracking -v2 Message-ID: <20070523215756.GA26450@gnuppy.monkey.org> References: <20070523072618.129001605@chello.nl> <20070523103311.GA13482@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070523103311.GA13482@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Bill Huey (hui) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1634 Lines: 37 On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:33:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: ... > > It also measures lock wait-time and hold-time in nanoseconds. The > > minimum and maximum times are tracked, as well as a total (which > > together with the number of event can give the avg). > > > > All statistics are done per lock class, per write (exclusive state) > > and per read (shared state). > > > > The statistics are collected per-cpu, so that the collection overhead > > is minimized via having no global cachemisses. ... > really nice changes! The wait-time and hold-time changes should make it > as capable as lockmeter and more: lockmeter only measured spinlocks, > while your approach covers all lock types (spinlocks, rwlocks and > mutexes). > > The performance enhancements in -v2 should make it much more scalable > than your first version was. (in fact i think it should be completely > scalable as the statistics counters are all per-cpu, so there should be > no cacheline bouncing at all from this) per cpu is pretty important since you can potentially hit that logic more often with your wait-time code. You don't want to effect the actual measurement with the measurement code. It's that uncertainty principal thing. It is looking pretty good. :) You might like to pretty the output even more, but it's pretty usable as is. bill - 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/