linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] tracing: add sched_prio

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: <20160706101412.2079a243@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:14:12 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...icios.com>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, daolivei@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tracing: add sched_prio_update

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:53:24 -0400
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...icios.com> wrote:

 
> > I'm not convinced this should be needed. I hate adding back to back
> > tracepoints.  
> 
> Indeed, having two tracepoints back to back is not pretty. We placed it
> here to get the priority of the newly created threads. Maybe a more
> appropriate way of doing that would be to extend the sched_process_fork
> tracepoint to output the same scheduling informations. Would you prefer
> that option ?

That may be a possibility. Let's see what Peter thinks.

-- Steve