From: Ingo Molnar on

* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> > You add chained indirect calls into all lock ops, that's got to hurt.
>
> Well, the idea was not bad at the first glance. It was separating lockdep
> and lock events codes.
>
> But indeed, the indirect calls plus the locking are not good for such a fast
> path.

What would be nice to have is some sort of dynamic patching approach to enable
_both_ lockdep, lockstat and perf lock.

If TRACE_EVENT() tracepoints were patchable we could use them. (but they arent
right now)

Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/