[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090427190953.GA3597@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:09:53 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
zhaolei@...fujitsu.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, tzanussi@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] workqueue_tracepoint: Add worklet tracepoints for
worklet lifecycle tracing
On 04/27, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > I must admit, I don't really understand why trace_workqueue.c uses
> > cwq->thread as a "primary key". I have the feeling we can simplify
> > this code if we pass "struct workqueue_struct *" instead, but I am
> > not sure.
> >
> > In particular, trace_workqueue_flush(cwq->thread) looks a bit
> > strange to me. I can't imagine how it can be useful per-thread and
> > without trace_workqueue_flush_end() or something. I mean, if we
> > need to trace flushes, then imho it makes much more sense to add
> > flush_start/flush_end handlers into flush_workqueue().
>
> If this is fixed (and no other problem surfaces), would you mind to
> ack these bits?
If you think my ack can help, you have it right now ;)
> And if you can think of any way to make it even simpler / less
> intrusive, please let us know ...
Sure. But currently I only have a gut feeling (probably wrong) and nothing
more. And just in case, my apologies to all, I can't be very responsive on
this topic in the near future.
Oleg.
--
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