Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 18:41:58 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mutex profiling Message-ID: <20020401184158.A15491@phoenix.dmnshq.net> In-Reply-To: <xzpg02f2xek.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>; from des@ofug.org on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 06:31:31PM %2B0200 References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020401112112.11038A-100000@fledge.watson.org> <xzpg02f2xek.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 06:31:31PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > Can we perhaps have the ability to dump the lock char * description? Or > > are you doing this way b/c you can get the file and line #'s? Looks good, > > tho. > > I can get both; I'm doing it this way because Eivind did it this way > and it didn't occur to me to change it. Is one preferrable to the > other? The use of filename/line combinations was done to be able to find what actual lock aquisitions result in introduction of large amounts of latency. The basic reason I wrote this patch was to be able to find what parts of our code result in latency, to focus effort there. Measuring the lock types themselves (which is what the lock description would give you) give a much less granular set of information. This accumulation can (non-trivially) be done separately, but if you do the accumulation, it is not possible to recover the information about where the latency is introduced. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020401184158.A15491>