linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] devfreq_cooling: add trace information

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150910131928.3c88fe28@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>
Cc:	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cw00.choi@...sung.com, edubezval@...il.com,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] devfreq_cooling: add trace information

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:09:31 +0100
Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com> wrote:

> Tracing is useful for debugging and performance tuning.  Add similar
> traces to what's present in the cpu cooling device.
> 
> Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c |  6 +++++
>  include/trace/events/thermal.h    | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c
> index a032c5d5c374..a27206815066 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@
>  #include <linux/pm_opp.h>
>  #include <linux/thermal.h>
>  
> +#include <trace/events/thermal.h>
> +
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(devfreq_lock);
>  static DEFINE_IDR(devfreq_idr);
>  
> @@ -293,6 +295,9 @@ static int devfreq_cooling_get_requested_power(struct thermal_cooling_device *cd
>  	/* Get static power */
>  	static_power = get_static_power(dfc, freq);
>  
> +	trace_thermal_power_devfreq_get_power(cdev, status, freq, dyn_power,
> +					      static_power);
> +
>  	*power = dyn_power + static_power;
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -348,6 +353,7 @@ static int devfreq_cooling_power2state(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
>  			break;
>  
>  	*state = i;
> +	trace_thermal_power_devfreq_limit(cdev, freq, *state, power);

I'm curious, does changing the above to:

	trace_thermal_power_devfreq_limit(cdev, freq, i, power);

make the compiled code better?

A tracepoint does some whacky things, and gcc may not optimize this.

The rest looks fine to me.

-- Steve

>  	return 0;
>  }
\
--
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/