Re: 2.6.8.1-mm3

[Jesse Barnes]

On Monday, August 23, 2004 9:27 am, wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:02:42AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> > You do realize that q-syscollect [1] can do this better for you
> > without touching the kernel at all?
> > [1] http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/q-tools/
>
> Never heard of it. Unfortunately, the issue I run into far more
> frequently than tools not existing is users being unwilling or unable
> to use them. In fact, it's even a relatively large hassle to get users
> to boot with /proc/profile enabled regardless of its simplicity. For an
> issue this common I would prefer that the most basic tools available
> (i.e. the very few that are near-universal, e.g. readprofile(1) etc.)
> report callers to spinlock contention by default.

q-tools is great and I'd really like to use it, but it would be great if 
readprofile worked too and reported callers into the contention function.  
I've already found that q-tools isn't that easy to setup on some machines, 
whereas readprofile is near universal, so I think there's value in making the 
latter work reasonably well, while still keeping its simplicity.

Thanks,
Jesse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/