Re: profiling aufs

On Monday 07 October 2002 11.00, Robert Collins wrote:

> This isn't true. IFF the worker threads do not use -any- common
> profiled calls, then it works, otherwise we may get xmalloc timings
> trashed (for example).

xmalloc isn't exacly threads safe today if any of the
trace/debug/leakcheck xmalloc options is enabled..

> Today - no. In the future - maybe. IMO the queueing code can be
> generalised to support any blocking or cpu bound requests. This can
> be useful for things like content transformation. (Waaaay down the
> track).

Agreed.

And I agree that having "threads safe" profiling is a good idea and
needs to be investigated. I think a good start would be to allow for
separate profiling timers. Having a full profiling block per therad
is most likely overkill. A interesting question is how to perform any
meaningful statisticts on per-thread timers.. the actual timer itself
is only a small part, you also need a readout of the timer.

Regards
Henrik
Received on Mon Oct 07 2002 - 04:34:51 MDT