Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:57:07 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Xiaoguang Wang <xiaoguang.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] jbd2: add new tracepoint jbd2_sleep_on_shadow
Message-ID: <20190911135707.GC2740@mit.edu>
References: <20190902145442.1921-1-xiaoguang.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20190907162145.GC23683@mit.edu>
 <5d96e18f-9610-208f-6db3-6a7b6a112400@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5d96e18f-9610-208f-6db3-6a7b6a112400@linux.alibaba.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 02:52:51PM +0800, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
> > I think maybe it might be better to use units of microseconds and then
> > change sleep to usleep so the units are clear?  This is a spinlock, so
> > it should be quick.
>
> Sorry, I may not quite understand you, do you mean that milliseconds is not precise, so
> should use microseconds? For these two patches, they do not use usleep or msleep to do
> real sleep work, they just record the duration which process takes to wait bh_shadow flag
> to be cleared or transaction to be unlocked.

Apologies, I should have been clear enough.  Yes, my concern that
milliseconds might not be fine-grained enough.  The sample results
which you showed had values of 2ms, 1ms, and 0ms.  And the single 0ms
result in particular raised the concern that we should use a
microseconds instead of milliseconds.

In fact, instead of "sleep", maybe "latency(us)" or "latency(ms)"
would be a better label?

Regards,

						- Ted