From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:55:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:55:48 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:28655 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:55:37 -0400 Message-ID: <3BAA49B5.E02FA5E7@mvista.com> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:55:33 -0700 From: george anzinger Organization: Monta Vista Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20b i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roger Larsson CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robert Love Subject: Re: [PATCH] latency-profiling In-Reply-To: <200109200609.f8K69uQ26778@mailc.telia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Roger Larsson wrote: > > Hi, > > I ported my old latency-profiling patch to 2.4.10-pre10 with > the reschedulable kernel patch. (I have not checked that it is > preemption safe itself...) > > This patch works a little different from Robert Loves. > Since it samples the execution location at ticks. > It is possible to instrument an ordinary kernel too... It gives experienced latencies rather than potential latencies, but more important from the developer/maintainers point of view, "Robert Loves" patch provides information on the bad guys, i.e. the reason for the long latency, which, hopefully, will allow them to be addressed by competent maintainers. George