All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] lockstat: core infrastructure
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:30:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070601183053.GA30072@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1180714263.15884.52.camel@imap.mvista.com>


* Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:

> > So, having two interfaces, one fast and one accurate is the right 
> > answer IMHO.
> 
> In the case of lockstat you have two cases fast and functional, and 
> non-functional .. Right now your patch has no slow and functional 
> state.

let me explain it to you:

1) there is absolutely no problem here to begin with. If a rare 
architecture is lazy enough to not bother implementing a finegrained 
sched_clock() then it certainly does not care about the granularity of 
lockstat fields either. If it does, it can improve scheduling and get 
more finegrained lockstat by implementing a proper sched_clock() 
function - all for the same price! ;-)

2) the 'solution' you suggested for this non-problem is _far worse_ than 
the granularity non-problem, on the _majority_ of server systems today! 
Think about it! Your suggestion would make lockstat _totally unusable_. 
Not "slow and functional" like you claim but "dead-slow and unusable".

in light of all this it is puzzling to me how you can still call Peter's 
code "non-functional" with a straight face. I have just tried lockstat 
with jiffies granular sched_clock() and it was still fully functional. 
So if you want to report some bug then please do it in a proper form.

> As I said before there is no reason why and architectures should be 
> forced to implement sched_clock() .. Is there some specific reason why 
> you think it should be mandatory?

Easy: it's not mandatory, but it's certainly "nice" even today, even 
without lockstat. It will get you:

 - better scheduling
 - better printk timestamps
 - higher-quality blktrace timestamps

With lockstat, append "more finegrained lockstat output" to that list of 
benefits too. That's why every sane server architecture has a 
sched_clock() implementation - go check the kernel source. Now i wouldnt 
mind to clean the API up and call it get_stat_clock() or whatever - but 
that was not your suggestion at all - your suggestion was flawed: to 
implement sched_clock() via the GTOD clocksource.

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2007-06-01 18:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-05-29 12:52 [PATCH 0/5] lock contention tracking -v3 Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-29 12:52 ` [PATCH 1/5] fix raw_spinlock_t vs lockdep Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-29 12:52 ` [PATCH 2/5] lockdep: sanitise CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-29 13:21   ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-05-29 14:16     ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-30  3:14       ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-29 12:52 ` [PATCH 3/5] lockstat: core infrastructure Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-29 20:28   ` Daniel Walker
2007-05-30 13:03     ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-30 13:24     ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-30 13:40       ` Steven Rostedt
2007-05-30 13:49         ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-30 17:06           ` Daniel Walker
2007-05-30 17:16             ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-30 17:25               ` Daniel Walker
2007-06-01 13:12                 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-01 15:26                   ` Daniel Walker
2007-06-01 15:52                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-01 16:11                       ` Daniel Walker
2007-06-01 18:30                         ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2007-06-01 19:25                           ` Matt Mackall
2007-06-01 19:30                           ` Daniel Walker
2007-06-01 18:43                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-01 18:51                           ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-01 19:30                           ` Daniel Walker
2007-06-01 18:19                     ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-01 19:30                       ` Daniel Walker
2007-06-01 14:25                 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-30 15:20       ` Daniel Walker
2007-05-30  3:43   ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-29 12:52 ` [PATCH 4/5] lockstat: human readability tweaks Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-29 12:52 ` [PATCH 5/5] lockstat: hook into spinlock_t, rwlock_t, rwsem and mutex Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070601183053.GA30072@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dwalker@mvista.com \
    --cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.