[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0902231303000.18221@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:03:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/ftrace: add missing wake-up on some callsites
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > > Which would send a delayed work to wake up?
> >
> > No, I was thinking that trace_delay_wake_up() would be called
> > by these dangerous call sites. Then a per_cpu flag could be
> > set. We could have a trace point in the scheduler code that is
> > outside holding a runqueue lock, and this trace point would
> > call a trace function that will clear the per cpu flag, and
> > then call trace_wake_up().
>
> No, that's very roundabout and ugly. If we putting a tracepoint
> there we might as well put real scheduler code there that looks
> for such a flag. But i'm not convinced we need a flag ...
Just a suggestion. I was trying to keep the tracer from being an overhead.
But what else would you suggest? Just having the scheduler call
trace_wakeup?
-- Steve
--
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