[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0903241126340.22830@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:27:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] function-graph: ignore times across schedule
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
> >
> > Impact: more accurate timings
> >
> > The current method of function graph tracing does not take into
> > account the time spent when a task is not running. This shows functions
> > that call schedule have increased costs:
> >
> > 3) + 18.664 us | }
> > ------------------------------------------
> > 3) <idle>-0 => kblockd-123
> > ------------------------------------------
> >
> > 3) | finish_task_switch() {
> > 3) 1.441 us | _spin_unlock_irq();
> > 3) 3.966 us | }
> > 3) ! 2959.433 us | }
> > 3) ! 2961.465 us | }
>
> dunno - i actually like how it shows the _real_ elapsed time. Why is
> this wrong?
OK,
I'll include a trace option called "sleep-time" to allow the user to
decide to show this or not.
-- 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