Re: [PATCH] perf lock: clean the options for perf record

[Hitoshi Mitake]

On 2011å03æ04æ 23:41, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 09:37:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 18:41 +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, how do you think about the idea of exporting data in
> > > python (or other neutral) expression from procfs? I feel it is a
> > > good idea. Communicating with unified format between user space and
> > > kernel space will reduce lots of parsing overhead. Is this too
> > > aggressive or insane?
> >
> > As I mentioned in another email, I have no problem with an easy to parse
> > file. But I will aggressively NAK any "python" or other scripting
> > language. I'm sure I would get the same response if I were to have the
> > kernel outputting perl language ;)
>
> Same for me.
>
> But even before talking about that, I wonder if doing this is actually needed.

With analyzing lock_stat, grasping the rough trend of lock usage might
be possible. I'm imagining the tool like top, e.g. read the data from
lock_stat periodically, analyze the difference between unit time, and
print the result.
--
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/