On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 14:34 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Neener, neener:
>
:-p
> 101) | run_local_timers() {
> 115) + 24.063 us | raise_softirq();
> 69) | run_local_timers() {
> 85) + 23.623 us | hrtimer_run_queues();
> 103) | run_local_timers() {
> 66) + 71.749 us | }
> 91) | run_local_timers() {
> 106) + 23.184 us | raise_softirq();
> 65) + 29.117 us | raise_softirq();
> 68) + 23.843 us | hrtimer_run_queues();
> 112) + 23.623 us | hrtimer_run_queues();
> 105) + 24.063 us | hrtimer_run_queues();
> 17) + 25.161 us | raise_softirq();
> 82) + 24.282 us | hrtimer_run_queues();
> 100) + 72.628 us | }
>
> BTW, one thing that drives me nuts on this machine is that catting the
> 'trace' file takes several seconds to start up. Is it calling
> stop_machine() or something else which very expensive with high cpu
> counts?
No, in does not call stop_machine, but it stops all tracing on all cpus.
I wonder what is happening :-/
It does allocate an "iterator" that has per cpu descriptors.
Does "trace_pipe" give you the same issues?
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
