Re: [PATCH 10/11] tracing/perf: Fix lock events recursions in thefast path

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 12:12 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> That said, I think this is good for a first step, but we can't continue
> to force the lock events -> lockdep dependency in the long term. We
> can't have a serious lock profiling if we are doomed to suffer the
> slowness due to lockdep checks at the same time.
> 
> Sure we can continue to support having both, but I think we should also
> think about a solution to handle lock events without it in the future.
> That will require some minimal lockdep functionalities (keeping the
> lockdep map, and class hashes).

You mean like building without CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, or boot with
lockdep.prove_locking=0, or use echo 0
> /sys/modules/lockdep/prove_locking ?

That keeps the lock tracking but does away with all the dependency
analysis and was created for just such an use case as you are looking
at, namely lockstat.

--
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/