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
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox