[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091014070508.GI784@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:05:08 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: add notifier for process migration
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> @@ -1981,6 +1989,12 @@ void set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int new_cpu)
> #endif
> perf_swcounter_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_CPU_MIGRATIONS,
> 1, 1, NULL, 0);
> +
> + tmn.task = p;
> + tmn.from_cpu = old_cpu;
> + tmn.to_cpu = new_cpu;
> +
> + atomic_notifier_call_chain(&task_migration_notifier, 0, &tmn);
We already have one event notifier there - look at the
perf_swcounter_event() callback. Why add a second one for essentially
the same thing?
We should only put a single callback there - a tracepoint defined via
TRACE_EVENT() - and any secondary users can register a callback to the
tracepoint itself.
There's many similar places in the kernel - with notifier chains and
also with a need to get tracepoints there. The fastest (and most
consistent) solution is to add just a single event callback facility.
Ingo
--
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