Re: [Announce] Development release 0.1 of the LatencyTOP tool

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>]

Andi Kleen wrote:
>> yes indeed; I sort of use the same infrastructure inside the scheduler; the 
>> biggest
>> reason I felt I had to do something different was that I wanted to do per 
>> process
>> data collection, so that you can see for a specific process what was going 
>> on.
> 
> Wouldn't it have been easier then to just extend the sleep profiler to
> oprofile? oprofile already has pid filters and can do per process 
> profiling.

it's more complex than that
> 
> On the other hand I'm not fully sure only doing per pid profiling
> is that useful. After all often latencies come from asynchronous
> threads (like kblockd). So a system level view is probably better
> anyways. 

another thing that the current profiling can't do, is to show what the system is doing
when it hits the latency.. so someone calling fsync() will show up in the waiting for
IO function, but not that it was due to an fsync().