* Sébastien Dugué <[email protected]> wrote:
> > thanks for tracking this down. FYI, the latency of stopping the trace is
> > that expensive because we are copying large amounts of trace data
> > around, to ensure that /proc/latency_trace is always consistent and is
> > updated atomically, and to make sure that we can update the trace from
> > interrupt contexts too - without /proc/latency_trace accesses blocking
> > them. The latency of stopping the trace is hidden from the tracer itself
> > - but it cannot prevent indirect effects such as your app from missing
> > periods, if the periods are in the 5msec range.
> >
>
> Thanks for the explanation, will have to look deeper into the code
> to understand how it works though.
there's another complexity on SMP: if trace_all_cpus is set then the
per-cpu trace buffers are sorted chronologically as well while the
copying into the current-max-trace-buffer, to produce easier to read
latency_trace output.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
