[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110117162105.GA1778@nowhere>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:21:08 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing, perf : add cpu hotplug trace events
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 07:49:58AM -0600, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> I was just wondering which tracepoints format between my 1st proposal
> and yours was the easier to post process by an application like
> pytimechart.
No idea as pytimechart uses his own ad hoc event parsing. Either
way there won't be much differences though.
> I have updated the cpu hotplug tracepoint according to your remarks
> and steve's ones. I have just replaced the second
> cpu_arch_die_start/end in your proposal by cpu_arch_dead_start/endfrq
Tracepoints tend to describe actions rather than states, although I can
show you some exceptions as well. But this tends to be the major
tendency. I suggest you to be stay consistent with this scheme.
Thanks.
--
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