[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fba4d013-5bfa-54af-fa96-483b71964f7c@bmw-carit.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:30:26 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
To: Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>,
"Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Masami <masami.hiramatsu@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] tracing: Add trace_irqsoff tracepoints
Hi Binoy,
On 08/30/2016 12:28 PM, Binoy Jayan wrote:
> +static inline void trace_latency_preempt_mark_ts(enum latency_type ltype)
> +{
> + this_cpu_write(lat_ts[ltype], (cycle_t) trace_clock_local());
> +}
> +
> +static inline void latency_trace(enum latency_type type)
> +{
> + trace_latency_preempt(type,
> + (cycle_t) trace_clock_local() - this_cpu_read(lat_ts[type]));
> +}
As Masami has pointed out, the prefix trace_ should not be used. Also
having trace_latency_ and latency_trace_ is kind of confusing. What
about {start|stop}_latency_timing()? It would match the existing
{start|stop}_critical_timing(). Or is it too close and it leads to
confusion?
Another idea is {start|stop}_latency_preempt(). This matches the
trace_latency_preempt_enable() function.
cheers,
daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists