[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090123101949.GD15188@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:19:49 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] tracing/function-graph-tracer: various fixes
and features
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>
> This patch brings various bugfixes:
>
> _ Drop the first irrelevant task switch on the very beginning of a trace.
> _ Drop the OVERHEAD word from the headers, the DURATION word is sufficient and will not
> overlap other columns.
> _ Make the headers fit well their respective columns whatever the selected options.
> About features, one can now disable the duration (this will hide the
> overhead too for convenient reasons and because on doesn't need overhead
> if it hasn't the duration
very nice! I've applied this to tip/tracing/function-graph-tracer, thanks
Frederic!
this:
> I guess no one needs the nanosec precision here, the main goal is to
> find when happened the events on a cpu when the trace switches from one
> cpu to another.
>
> ie:
>
> 274.874760 | 1) 0.676 us | _spin_unlock();
> 274.874762 | 1) 0.609 us | native_load_sp0();
> 274.874763 | 1) 0.602 us | native_load_tls();
> 274.878739 | 0) 0.722 us | }
> 274.878740 | 0) 0.714 us | native_pmd_val();
> 274.878741 | 0) 0.730 us | native_pmd_val();
>
> Here there is a 4000 usecs difference when we switch the cpu.
Still needs a solution - if we do cross-CPU traces we want to have a
global trace clock with 'seemless' transition between CPUs.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists