[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090403180516.GC6968@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:05:16 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/filters: allow event filters to be set only
when not tracing
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 12:43:15PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > My kneejerk reaction is "why would anyone want to trace the idle
> > > loop?"
> >
> > heh :-)
> >
> > Idle enter/exit events are useful to tune power use for example. The
> > more events we have there, the more we prevent the CPU from slowly
> > going into deep sleep mode.
But we could in principle trace idle enter/exit from the scheduler, correct?
That said, it would be possible to allow much of the idle loop to contain
RCU read-side critical sections, but this requires putting rcu_qsctr_inc()
in each and every idle loop, plus catching the cases where idle loops
shut down the CPU. Note that this applies to synchronize_sched() as
well as synchronize_rcu().
> I can say I use it a lot. I'm still needing a way to set the function pid
> recorder to 0 since the conversion to the pid structure. There are times
> I only want to trace the interrupts that happen in the idle loop.
It would be OK to trace the interrupts, just not the idle loop itself.
Thanx, Paul
--
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