Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762726AbYASFXy (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:23:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751684AbYASFXr (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:23:47 -0500 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:54787 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750804AbYASFXr (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:23:47 -0500 Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:27:09 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [Announce] Development release 0.1 of the LatencyTOP tool Message-ID: <20080119052709.GA28467@one.firstfloor.org> References: <4790E3A6.7060807@linux.intel.com> <47918792.2080201@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47918792.2080201@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 870 Lines: 22 > yes indeed; I sort of use the same infrastructure inside the scheduler; the > biggest > reason I felt I had to do something different was that I wanted to do per > process > data collection, so that you can see for a specific process what was going > on. Wouldn't it have been easier then to just extend the sleep profiler to oprofile? oprofile already has pid filters and can do per process profiling. On the other hand I'm not fully sure only doing per pid profiling is that useful. After all often latencies come from asynchronous threads (like kblockd). So a system level view is probably better anyways. -Andi -- 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/