On Sun, 2 December 2007 21:07:22 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jörn Engel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Result looked like a livelock and finally convinced me to abandon the
> > latency tracer. Sorry, but it appears to be the right tool for the
> > wrong job.
>
> hm, we routinely use it in -rt to capture "what on earth is happening"
> incidents. The snippet below is a random snipped from a trace that i've
> just captured, with mcount enabled. It seems to work fine here, with and
> without mcount. (pit clocksource is almost never used, that's why you
> had those early problems.)
>
> oprofile helps if you can reliably reproduce the slowdown in a loop or
> for a long amount of time, with lots of CPU utilization - and then it's
> also lower overhead. The tracer can be used to capture rare or complex
> events, and gives the full flow control and what is happening within the
> kernel.
Such a trace would be useful indeed. But so far the patch has only
given me grief and nothing remotely like useful output. Maybe I should
simply use the complete -rt patch instead of debugging the broken-out
latency-tracer patch.
Jörn
--
Mundie uses a textbook tactic of manipulation: start with some
reasonable talk, and lead the audience to an unreasonable conclusion.
-- Bruce Perens
--
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]
