[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140711082755.GA2723@e104805>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:27:55 +0100
From: "Javi Merino" <javi.merino@....com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Punit Agrawal <Punit.Agrawal@....com>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 09/10] thermal: add trace events to the power
allocator governor
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 07:03:50PM +0100, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:20:14 +0100
> "Javi Merino" <javi.merino@....com> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > How many CPUs are you saving load_cpu on? A trace event can't be bigger
> > > than a page. And the data is actually a little less than that with the
> > > required headers.
> >
> > The biggest system I've tested it on is an 8 cpu system (with
> > NR_CPUS==8). So yes, small and we haven't seen any issues.
> >
> > Are you saying that we are siphoning too much data through ftrace? He
> > find it really valuable to collect information during run and process
> > it afterwards but I can see how this may not be feasible for systems
> > with thousands of cpus.
>
> Only too much for a single event. Perhaps have the tracepoint post per
> CPU? Then you wouldn't need that array.
Sounds good, I'll do that.
--
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