On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 10:41:56AM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Eventually I'm mostly interested in the contended locks only and I > want to reduce the overhead in the fast path. By moving that, it'd be > easy to track contended locks with timing by using two tracepoints. So why not put in two new tracepoints and call it a day? Why muck about with all that lockdep stuff just to preserve the name (and in the process continue to blow up data structures etc..). This leaves distros in a bind, will they enable this config and provide tracepoints while bloating the data structures and destroying things like lockref (which relies on sizeof(spinlock_t)), or not provide this at all. Yes, the name is convenient, but it's just not worth it IMO. It makes the whole proposition too much of a trade-off. Would it not be possible to reconstruct enough useful information from the lock callsite?
