Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to lock
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Wed Mar 17 2010 - 05:53:00 EST
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > You add chained indirect calls into all lock ops, that's got to hurt.
>
> Well, the idea was not bad at the first glance. It was separating lockdep
> and lock events codes.
>
> But indeed, the indirect calls plus the locking are not good for such a fast
> path.
What would be nice to have is some sort of dynamic patching approach to enable
_both_ lockdep, lockstat and perf lock.
If TRACE_EVENT() tracepoints were patchable we could use them. (but they arent
right now)
Ingo
--
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/