Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 08:27:52 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@gmail.com>,
       Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf lock: New subcommand "lock" to perf for
 analyzing lock statistics
Message-ID: <20091207072752.GG10868@elte.hu>
References: <20091115022135.GA5427@nowhere>
 <1260156884-8474-2-git-send-email-mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
 <20091207044125.GB5262@nowhere>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20091207044125.GB5262@nowhere>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1675
Lines: 50


* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:34:44PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> > This patch adds new subcommand "lock" to perf for analyzing lock usage statistics.
> > Current perf lock is very primitive. This cannot provide the minimum functions.
> > Of course I continue to working on this.
> > But too big patch is not good thing for you, so I post this.
> 
> Oh great!
> Yeah, the work can be done incrementally.
>
[...]
>
> 
> Very nice and promising!
> 
> I can't wait to try it.

ok, to ease testing i've created a new (and not yet permanent) topic 
tree for it to track this new perf feature: tip:perf/lock and pushed it 
out.

Note: because it's not yet in a final form i have not merged it into 
tip:master yet - when you are working on these bits you need to do this 
manually via:

  git merge tip/perf/lock

Also, we might need to rebase this branch as it's WIP, so the commit IDs 
are not permanent yet. But i thought it would be easier to do deltas on 
this basis.

Hitoshi-san, the patches did not have a Signed-off-by line from you, can 
i add them for you?

Also, i agree that the performance aspect is probably the most pressing 
issue. Note that 'perf bench sched messaging' is very locking intense so 
a 10x slowdown is not entirely unexpected - we still ought to optimize 
it all some more. 'perf lock' is an excellent testcase for this in any 
case.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/