Re: [PATCH 4/4] Implement semaphore latency tracer

[Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>]

On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 17:48 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Török Edwin <edwintorok@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 2008-10-22 18:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > hm, but the most common synchronization primitive are mutexes - and 
> > > those are not covered by your patchset.
> > >   
> > 
> > Indeed. I've seen a patch from Jason Baron to introduce tracepoints 
> > for mutexes, but the conclusion was that the tracepoints should be in 
> > lockstat instead.
> > 
> > And if lockstat is enabled Peter Zijlstra's 'contend with points' 
> > patch seems to do exactly what I want to.
> > 
> > However I think it would be useful to have (a tracepoints based?) 
> > latency tracker, which can be enabled/disabled at runtime, and which 
> > doesn't add any data to the mutex/semaphore structures. My patchset 
> > was a first attempt towards that, but it seems that such use of 
> > tracepoints is not welcome at this time?
> > 
> > Please tell me if I should continue working on this, or if I my 
> > patches are designed totally on the wrong way.
> 
> i think if you hook into Peter's lockstat APIs that should give us a 
> pretty good tracer, with no ugliness introduced. That would be rather 
> interesting. Peter, do you concur?

Yes, I've already suggested this. Use the exact same hooks that
lockdep/lockstat use.