Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id f7LEZ1122698 for lockmeter-outgoing; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 07:35:01 -0700 Received: from ureach.com (mail.ureach.com [63.150.151.36]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id f7LEYx922695 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 07:34:59 -0700 Received: from www20.ureach.com (IDENT:root@www20.ureach.com [172.16.2.48]) by ureach.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA15030 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:34:53 -0400 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by www20.ureach.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id KAA23810; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:34:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:34:53 -0400 Message-Id: <200108211434.KAA23810@www20.ureach.com> To: lockmeter@oss.sgi.com From: Kapish K Reply-to: Subject: query related to spinlock metering Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-vsuite-type: e Sender: owner-lockmeter@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Hello, We have been facing some problems with some kernel defects and in the process we felt it might be worthwhile to try some wrapper around the spinlock code to see if it might be getting called wrongly or released wrongly. So, what we would like to is just a wrapper around the spinlock code to do some preliminary checks to make sure the lock is held before releasing it or along similar lines. Is this lockmeter from sgi similar in performance and is it lightweight? would it make sense for us to try this out rather than put down our own? but we are trying this to debug a smp related race problem.. so, if the performance impact of this is quite high, we might not even hit the problem and hence would not want to use it... so, if you can inform me about how much of an overhead this would be and its design in terms of whether it does check for wrong calls to spinlock ( lock or unlock ), it would eb of help to us. TIA ________________________________________________ Get your own "800" number Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag