[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A5D31E2.9030402@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:33:22 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ftrace: add tracepoint for hrtimer
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Here I'd like to see a callback_done entry as well, so we can check
> for long lasting callbacks.
>
I am trying to address your comment that move trace_timer_expires()
form hrtimer_interrupt()/hrtimer_run_queues() to __run_hrtimer() to
trace the execution time of hrtimer's callback, like below:
__run_hrtimer()
{
.....
+ trace_hrtimer_expires();
restart = fn(timer);
+ trace_hrtimer_callback_done();
......
}
But I meet a problem here that I can't get the timestamps when hrtimer
expires in __run_hrtimer(), which is used to calculate the latency of
hrtimer. I think it's Ok to not move trace_hrtimer_expires(), that is:
hrtimer_interrupt()
{
......
+ trace_hrtimer_expires();
__run_hrtimer(timer);
......
}
__run_hrtimer()
{
......
restart = fn(timer);
+ trace_hrtimer_callback_done();
......
}
But if more accurate execution time is a require, we'd better use the
tracepoints added by Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>. That is:
hrtimer_interrupt()
{
......
+ trace_hrtimer_expires();
__run_hrtimer(timer);
......
}
__run_hrtimer()
{
......
+ trace_hrtimer_callback_entry()
restart = fn(timer);
+ trace_hrtimer_callback_exit();
......
}
Thanks,
Xiao
--
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