[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=U7K==YMytwcGwteTXdf1RFdxo8BoDhfR-9AriL83D8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:26:05 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@....qualcomm.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Future of NOHZ full/isolation development (was Re: [NOHZ] Remove scheduler_tick_max_deferment)
On 12 November 2014 19:24, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> I'd rather leave that to tracepoints. Like trace_hrtimer_spurious().
Yeah, it was just to prove things right on the console without getting
into traces.
> Or better yet: have trace_hrtimer_interrupt() which we can compare against
> trace_hrtimer_expire_entry/exit() to check if any hrtimer callback have run
> in the interrupt. This way we avoid workarounds like the above count.
Yeah, I also believe we better add this debug information to mainline kernel.
I will try to get a patch for that soon.
Would it be recommended to add both trace points?
i.e. trace_hrtimer_interrupt() and trace_hrtimer_spurious() ?
--
viresh
--
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