[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1275296099.27810.21622.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 10:54:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 10:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 10:00 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > 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?
>
> Right, so a few of those corner cases I mentioned above are things like
> re-nice, PI-boosts etc.. Those use deactivate, modify task-state,
> activate cycles. so if you want to see those, we can add an explicit
> tracepoint for those actions.
>
> An explicit nice/PI-boost tracepoint is much clearer than trying to
> figure out wth the deactivate/activate cycle was for.
Another advantage of explicit tracepoints is that you'd see them even
for non-running tasks, because we only do the deactivate/activate thingy
for runnable tasks.
--
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