Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down

* Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:

> we have around 1400 locks in the kernel, this would give 414400 per cpu.
> 
> vs the old code:
> 
> 2048*(4*8) = 65536
> +
> 2048*(4*4*8 + 4*8) = 327680 per cpu
> 
> worst case
> 
> I'm not convinced 300 lines less code is worth that extra bloat.

agreed, this is not worth it. It would be acceptable if the statistics 
stuff was flexible enough to have the same footprint as the current 
lockstat data structures.

	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/

---

• References:
  • [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down
    • From: Martin Peschke <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: floppy.c soft lockup
• Next by Date: [PATCH 1/3] PATA: Add the MCP73/77 support to PATA driver
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]