From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10304 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2005 03:58:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10294 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2005 03:58:02 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:58:00 -0000 From: Keshavamurthy Anil S To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: Keshavamurthy Anil S , systemtap@sources.redhat.com, Satoshi Oshima , Hideo Aoki , sugita@sdl.hitachi.co.jp Subject: Re: [Patch 2/5][Djprobe]Djprobe Coexist with Kprobes Message-ID: <20051018205739.A31016@unix-os.sc.intel.com> Reply-To: Keshavamurthy Anil S References: <433BE533.9080501@sdl.hitachi.co.jp> <20051003162917.A16966@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <434490F0.3030400@sdl.hitachi.co.jp> <20051006125717.A18501@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <434E32F9.2000509@sdl.hitachi.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <434E32F9.2000509@sdl.hitachi.co.jp>; from hiramatu@sdl.hitachi.co.jp on Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 07:12:09PM +0900 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 10.3.253.9 X-SW-Source: 2005-q4/txt/msg00057.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 07:12:09PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > Hi, Anil > > > > > > > Also, I see the same linear search happening inside work_check_djprobe_instance(). > > As I understand you are scheduling this function on all the cpus and inside this > > function you are doing a linear search for djprobe instances that too holding > > a spin lock and thus making other thread executing this function on different > cpus to > > wait untill you finish serial search on this cpu. Hence my suggestion to look into > > optimizing this search. > > OK, that is a problem. I have an idea of "per-probe work"s to solve it. > This will allocate a lot of works and insert it into the workqueues on each cpu. > Is this acceptable? How about calling flush_scheduled_work(). Will this work? Cheers, Anil