Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path

From	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path
Date	2017-07-06 18:20 +0200
Message-ID	<u0hFv-7Q8-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <tT3Hk-3lN-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tZXGN-1Dt-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <u0fkn-4Ys-49@gated-at.bofh.it> <u0ggq-67f-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <u0gT7-6UV-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 05:29:26PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Based on the benchmarks I run, it doesn't fail so much often, but I was
> thinking about adding some counters here. The system is accounting for
> major page faults and minor ones, respectively current->maj_flt and
> current->min_flt. I was wondering if an additional type like async_flt will
> be welcome or if there is another smarter way to get that metric.
> 
> Feel free to advise.

You could stick a tracepoint in, or extend PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS*.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-07-05 21:00 +0200
  Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-07-06 15:50 +0200
    Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-07-06 16:50 +0200
      Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-07-06 17:30 +0200
        Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-07-06 18:20 +0200

csiph-web