[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100531080049.GA435@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 10:00:49 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Add task activate/deactivate tracepoints
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 16:26 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > We have various tracepoints that tell us when a task is going to
> > be enqueued in a runqueue: fork, wakeup, migrate.
> >
> > But they don't always provide us the level of information necessary
> > to know what is actually in which runqueue, precisely because the
> > migrate event is only fired if the task is queued on another
> > cpu than its previous one. So we don't always know where a waking up
> > task goes.
> >
> > And moreover we don't have events that tells a task goes to sleep,
> > and even that wouldn't cover every cases when a task is dequeued.
> >
> > So bring these two new tracepoints to get informations about the
> > load of each runqueues.
>
> NAK, aside from a few corner cases wakeup and sleep are the important
> points.
>
> The activate and deactivate functions are implementation details.
Frederic, can you show us a concrete example of where we dont know what is
going on due to inadequate instrumentation? Can we fix that be extending the
existing tracepoints?
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