public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox