Hi Jiri,
On Mon, 6 May 2013 14:04:11 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:44:56AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Hi Jiri,
>>
>> Sorry for late reply. I've been busy these days.
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:24:18 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> > But it looks there's a race between
Hi Jiri,
On Mon, 6 May 2013 14:04:11 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:44:56AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Hi Jiri,
Sorry for late reply. I've been busy these days.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:24:18 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
But it looks there's a race between cond_wait()
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:44:56AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> Sorry for late reply. I've been busy these days.
>
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:24:18 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:12:41 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >> I got following lockup for record command:
> >>
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:44:56AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Hi Jiri,
Sorry for late reply. I've been busy these days.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:24:18 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:12:41 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
I got following lockup for record command:
# ./perf
On 5/5/13 7:57 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Hi David,
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:44:18 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
On 4/25/13 12:24 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
But it looks there's a race between cond_wait() and cond_broatcast().
I'll take a look at that.
Why not use eventfd or a pipe for the signalling
Hi David,
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:44:18 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 4/25/13 12:24 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> But it looks there's a race between cond_wait() and cond_broatcast().
>> I'll take a look at that.
>
> Why not use eventfd or a pipe for the signalling instead?
Thanks for your
Hi Jiri,
Sorry for late reply. I've been busy these days.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:24:18 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:12:41 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> I got following lockup for record command:
>>
>> # ./perf --no-pager ftrace record ls
>> ...
>> hangs
>>
>> in
Hi Jiri,
Sorry for late reply. I've been busy these days.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:24:18 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:12:41 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
I got following lockup for record command:
# ./perf --no-pager ftrace record ls
...
hangs
in other terminal:
Hi David,
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:44:18 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
On 4/25/13 12:24 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
But it looks there's a race between cond_wait() and cond_broatcast().
I'll take a look at that.
Why not use eventfd or a pipe for the signalling instead?
Thanks for your feedback!
I
On 5/5/13 7:57 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Hi David,
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:44:18 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
On 4/25/13 12:24 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
But it looks there's a race between cond_wait() and cond_broatcast().
I'll take a look at that.
Why not use eventfd or a pipe for the signalling
On 4/25/13 12:24 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
But it looks there's a race between cond_wait() and cond_broatcast().
I'll take a look at that.
Why not use eventfd or a pipe for the signalling instead?
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 03:24:18PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:12:41 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > I got following lockup for record command:
> >
> > # ./perf --no-pager ftrace record ls
> > ...
> > hangs
> >
> > in other terminal:
> >
> > # pstack 14237
> >
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 03:24:18PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:12:41 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
I got following lockup for record command:
# ./perf --no-pager ftrace record ls
...
hangs
in other terminal:
# pstack 14237
Thread 2 (Thread
On 4/25/13 12:24 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
But it looks there's a race between cond_wait() and cond_broatcast().
I'll take a look at that.
Why not use eventfd or a pipe for the signalling instead?
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:12:41 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> I got following lockup for record command:
>
> # ./perf --no-pager ftrace record ls
> ...
> hangs
>
> in other terminal:
>
> # pstack 14237
> Thread 2 (Thread 0x7f3f1aa1d700 (LWP 14241)):
> #0 0x003cec20b595 in
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:12:41 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
I got following lockup for record command:
# ./perf --no-pager ftrace record ls
...
hangs
in other terminal:
# pstack 14237
Thread 2 (Thread 0x7f3f1aa1d700 (LWP 14241)):
#0 0x003cec20b595 in
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 05:31:07PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> From: Namhyung Kim
>
> The ftrace record command is for saving raw ftrace buffer contents
> which can be get from per_cpu/cpuX/trace_pipe_raw.
>
> Since ftrace events are generated very frequently so single thread for
> recording
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 05:31:07PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
From: Namhyung Kim namhyung@lge.com
The ftrace record command is for saving raw ftrace buffer contents
which can be get from per_cpu/cpuX/trace_pipe_raw.
Since ftrace events are generated very frequently so single thread for
From: Namhyung Kim
The ftrace record command is for saving raw ftrace buffer contents
which can be get from per_cpu/cpuX/trace_pipe_raw.
Since ftrace events are generated very frequently so single thread for
recording mostly resulted in buffer overruns. Thus it uses per-cpu
recorder thread to
From: Namhyung Kim namhyung@lge.com
The ftrace record command is for saving raw ftrace buffer contents
which can be get from per_cpu/cpuX/trace_pipe_raw.
Since ftrace events are generated very frequently so single thread for
recording mostly resulted in buffer overruns. Thus it uses per-cpu
20 matches
Mail list logo
