Mirror of the lttng-dev mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: jan.kiszka@web.de (Jan Kiszka)
Subject: [ltt-dev] trace a futex
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:10:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4935B25F.7010701@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081202215519.GA734@Krystal>

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Gian Lorenzo Meocci (glmeocci at gmail.com) wrote:
>> Hi Mathieu,
>>
>> thanks for your reply.
>>
>> I want specify that:
>> 1) I am already patching glibc (and, of course, nptl/pthread_*)
>> 2) I already add two event to pthread_mutex_lock. The first at the
>> beginning of the function and the second after all return 0 presented
>> on that function. But those two events are not enough to establish if
>> a pthread_mutex_lock has been blocking.
>> In fact I know only the time spent on pthread_mutex_lock. If this time
>> is little probably I hold the mutex otherwise I was been descheduled.
>>
>> So thanks a lot again,
>>
>>
> 
> Ok, then you will probably want to correlate your information with :
> 
> - scheduling activity regarding your threads
> - system call entry events, especially sys_futex. Note that a thread
>   calling sys_futex won't _necessarily_ be put to sleep.. it may still
>   be able to take the lock relatively quickly.
> 
> If you need more than that, we may think of instrumenting futex.c, but I
> am not sure this is required.

Haven't checked the state of instrumentation recently: Is the futex
operation visible in the trace now? It used to be not, and we often had
to guess the reason for sys_futex (wake, wait, pi or not pi, etc.) from
the context - or add ad-hoc instrumentation.

Jan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20081202/16397149/attachment-0002.pgp>


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: jan.kiszka@web.de (Jan Kiszka)
Subject: [ltt-dev] trace a futex
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:10:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4935B25F.7010701@web.de> (raw)
Message-ID: <20081202221039.32zucnQuTG4LX6rsR8vKEFPoGaFv8D93lptbnEjEK8M@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081202215519.GA734@Krystal>

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Gian Lorenzo Meocci (glmeocci at gmail.com) wrote:
>> Hi Mathieu,
>>
>> thanks for your reply.
>>
>> I want specify that:
>> 1) I am already patching glibc (and, of course, nptl/pthread_*)
>> 2) I already add two event to pthread_mutex_lock. The first at the
>> beginning of the function and the second after all return 0 presented
>> on that function. But those two events are not enough to establish if
>> a pthread_mutex_lock has been blocking.
>> In fact I know only the time spent on pthread_mutex_lock. If this time
>> is little probably I hold the mutex otherwise I was been descheduled.
>>
>> So thanks a lot again,
>>
>>
> 
> Ok, then you will probably want to correlate your information with :
> 
> - scheduling activity regarding your threads
> - system call entry events, especially sys_futex. Note that a thread
>   calling sys_futex won't _necessarily_ be put to sleep.. it may still
>   be able to take the lock relatively quickly.
> 
> If you need more than that, we may think of instrumenting futex.c, but I
> am not sure this is required.

Haven't checked the state of instrumentation recently: Is the futex
operation visible in the trace now? It used to be not, and we often had
to guess the reason for sys_futex (wake, wait, pi or not pi, etc.) from
the context - or add ad-hoc instrumentation.

Jan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20081202/16397149/attachment-0003.pgp>


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: jan.kiszka@web.de (Jan Kiszka)
Subject: [ltt-dev] trace a futex
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:10:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4935B25F.7010701@web.de> (raw)
Message-ID: <20081202221039.56fVdAqnybHa7VdrPMmOqqUoq38TYhIBFkzkGwC1ZPw@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081202215519.GA734@Krystal>

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Gian Lorenzo Meocci (glmeocci at gmail.com) wrote:
>> Hi Mathieu,
>>
>> thanks for your reply.
>>
>> I want specify that:
>> 1) I am already patching glibc (and, of course, nptl/pthread_*)
>> 2) I already add two event to pthread_mutex_lock. The first at the
>> beginning of the function and the second after all return 0 presented
>> on that function. But those two events are not enough to establish if
>> a pthread_mutex_lock has been blocking.
>> In fact I know only the time spent on pthread_mutex_lock. If this time
>> is little probably I hold the mutex otherwise I was been descheduled.
>>
>> So thanks a lot again,
>>
>>
> 
> Ok, then you will probably want to correlate your information with :
> 
> - scheduling activity regarding your threads
> - system call entry events, especially sys_futex. Note that a thread
>   calling sys_futex won't _necessarily_ be put to sleep.. it may still
>   be able to take the lock relatively quickly.
> 
> If you need more than that, we may think of instrumenting futex.c, but I
> am not sure this is required.

Haven't checked the state of instrumentation recently: Is the futex
operation visible in the trace now? It used to be not, and we often had
to guess the reason for sys_futex (wake, wait, pi or not pi, etc.) from
the context - or add ad-hoc instrumentation.

Jan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/pipermail/ltt-dev/attachments/20081202/16397149/attachment.pgp>


  reply	other threads:[~2008-12-02 22:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-02 19:42 Gian Lorenzo Meocci
2008-12-02 19:50 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-02 20:15   ` Gian Lorenzo Meocci
2008-12-02 21:55     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-02 22:10       ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2008-12-02 22:10         ` Jan Kiszka
2008-12-02 22:10         ` Jan Kiszka
2008-12-03  5:26         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-03  5:26           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-03  5:26           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-03 18:01           ` K.Prasad
2008-12-04  8:53             ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-12-05 12:28               ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-05 15:58                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-12-05 16:01                 ` Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4935B25F.7010701@web.de \
    --to=jan.kiszka@web.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox