From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] event: add tracepoint for accounting block time Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:02:27 -0800 Message-ID: <4ED39473.9080600@linux.intel.com> References: <1322471015-107825-1-git-send-email-avagin@openvz.org> <1322471015-107825-8-git-send-email-avagin@openvz.org> <1322480531.2921.107.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:26801 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751467Ab1K1OCe (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:02:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1322480531.2921.107.camel@twins> Sender: linux-perf-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Andrew Vagin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, mingo@elte.hu, acme@ghostprotocols.net, asharma@fb.com, devel@openvz.org, dsahern@gmail.com, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org On 11/28/2011 3:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 12:03 +0300, Andrew Vagin wrote: >> This tracepoint shows how long a task is sleeping in uninterruptible state. >> >> E.g. >> It may show how long and where a mutex is waited. > > Fair enough, makes one wonder how much it would take to make > account_scheduler_latency() go away.. I would *love* to switch latencytop to using trace points / perf events. But as long as this just means I get yelled at more for using "internal ABIs" and the like at various occasions, I'm rather hesitant to turn more tools into using perf. (and we all know what the next steps to resolve this are, they just have not happened yet; not all hope is lost)