[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100430090814.GF11032@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:08:14 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-trace-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, robert.schoene@...dresden.de,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
davej@...hat.com, arjan@...radead.org,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86 cpufreq: Make trace_power_frequency cpufreq
driver independent
* Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de> wrote:
> + trace_power_start(POWER_CSTATE, 1, smp_processor_id());
> + trace_power_start(POWER_CSTATE, (ax>>4)+1, smp_processor_id());
> + trace_power_start(POWER_CSTATE, 1, smp_processor_id());
> + trace_power_start(POWER_CSTATE, 0, smp_processor_id());
> + trace_power_frequency(POWER_PSTATE, freqs->new, freqs->cpu);
> + trace_power_end(smp_processor_id());
Extending power tracing to all cpufreq modules is obviously a good thing.
But why is trace_power_start() adding a CPU ID argument? CPU ids are already
available and can be sampled via PERF_SAMPLE_CPU if needed. AFAICS only
power_frequency needs a new 'target_cpu_id' field.
> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-timechart.c b/tools/perf/builtin-timechart.c
> index 0d4d8ff..7809bef 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-timechart.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-timechart.c
Timechart is maintained by Arjan so we need an ack from him as well. I've seen
some back and forth in the discussions - what's the technical resolution of
that?
(Also, there's some whitespace noise in the patch.)
Thanks,
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