From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:58:12 +0100
Subject: [ltt-dev] trace a futex
In-Reply-To: <20081205122822.GA25816@Krystal>
References: <8d94e9280812021142j2eb5ca72td730410e97ccd9a1@mail.gmail.com>
	<20081202195015.GA25792@Krystal>
	<8d94e9280812021215m6a63d6c2l4e64acd26274953d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20081202215519.GA734@Krystal> <4935B25F.7010701@web.de>
	<20081203052640.GA13701@Krystal> <20081203180131.GA2904@in.ibm.com>
	<1228380784.5092.18.camel@twins>  <20081205122822.GA25816@Krystal>
Message-ID: <1228492692.20520.3.camel@twins>

On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 07:28 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra (peterz at infradead.org) wrote:
> > 
> > FWIW, the ftrace infrastructure has on many an occasion (even before it
> > was called ftrace and specific to -rt) helped in debugging and fixing
> > futex races.
> > 
> 
> Hrm, I'm not sure futex races is the key aspect of interest here.
> Knowing which amount of pthread mutex lock calls ends up calling the
> scheduler looks a bit more like the topic brought by this particular
> use-case. Therefore, correlating the information from the nptl with the
> kernel information would be useful.

We already have the scheduler instrucmentation, so correlating that to
known futex calls (from userspace) shouldn't be too hard. 

> Is lockdep called when a futex is taken ? 

lockdep only does kernel-internal locks - so no.

> Should we add instrumentation
> (tracepoints) to futex.c ? If yes, was there specific instrumentation
> you used with ftrace that should be added ?

Not sure we should, Thomas did the bulk of that ftrace debugging, Thomas
do you think it would be worthwhile to add some tracepoints in there?