From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 059A8C4332F for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:39:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B6310E1D7; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:39:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1236::1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5A8110E1D7 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:39:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=OF/IgiH+v6IN/Pzp4IQTqAUh7fLzy/AMqRrw5uRs6QM=; b=LbJP76jKebDs3mjRSiss+VrY7f dyaOfWlffhDUHwB5AhCZaYYvYgwPKcloLfHaKYcpTn89ucITWQacDwWZdCUpXsJ1W4aPGDu1CoKWg Rfzrrf4xgw1gmNI7TdQWjDRc8mKeLyhdnOKMRPCY5pRyEN3Wib9vTBUNOwdD95nCv5VqFC6/0V7FQ Haq8I+dR+Ow1pT7b6qWtQv5lKaUKPND5wFWM1sqdcOOios9N3Wn/zaVMAzaStBFXvrfKDhY+htVJN 9uOg2NJnn422jyJBwlc67KqBfJSE0Vw19ZHFnLq5WuwjQtRMOFXBa8cNi2XxrR2RAgKJ34Y8iRUb+ Lw5VTLVQ==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net) by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nITKd-00AJv5-4D; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:39:15 +0000 Received: by worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 12A749853C7; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:39:14 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:39:13 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Namhyung Kim Message-ID: <20220211103913.GR23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20220208184208.79303-1-namhyung@kernel.org> <20220209090908.GK23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from lockdep/lock_stat (v1) X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: rcu , "Paul E. McKenney" , intel-gfx , Boqun Feng , LKML , Steven Rostedt , Radoslaw Burny , Byungchul Park , Mathieu Desnoyers , cgroups , Tejun Heo , Waiman Long , Thomas Gleixner , Will Deacon , Ingo Molnar , linux-btrfs Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 09:55:27PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote: > So you are ok with adding two new tracepoints, even if they are > similar to what we already have in lockdep/lock_stat, right? Yeah, I don't think adding tracepoints to the slowpaths of the various locks should be a problem.