On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 06:08:45PM -0700, David Mosberger-Tang wrote: > On 9/16/05, Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com> wrote: > > > Can you site one instance where it is more helpful to know that _ANY_ > > lock in the system is hitting ia64_spinlock_contention as opposed to > > the function which has the spin_lock() code? I can recall times when > > network traffic was contending on locks and causing my application to > > appear to have a contended lock. With this change, at least we know > > the degradation is do to something external. > > Not sure if I can help siting it, but I can cite one recent example: I > was looking at a profile of a test which wasn't supposed to have any > contention. Yet, ia64_spinlock_contention unexpectedly showed up > fairly high in the profile. Turns out it was due to some left-over > debug code. Of course, I was using q-syscollect so it was easy to see > who was calling the spinlock contention routine a lot... That would be a case where you are contending on one lock and you would be given the function that was contending. What I was concerned with is where two or more locks are contended and ia64_spinlock_contention artificially appears at the top. Robin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Mon Sep 19 09:11:12 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-09-19 09:11:20 EST