[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4877f67c-bd18-1811-2932-1c2fda47c0e4@osadl.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:20:44 +0200
From: Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>
To: Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>,
"Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Masami <masami.hiramatsu@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] tracing: Histogram for delayed hrtimer offsets
On 09/09/2016 03:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Binoy Jayan wrote:
>> On 8 September 2016 at 12:40, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> [..]
>>>> + latency = ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(basenow,
>>>> + ktime_to_ns(timer->praecox) ?
>>>> + timer->praecox : hrtimer_get_expires(timer)));
>>>> + task = timer->function == hrtimer_wakeup ?
>>>> + container_of(timer, struct hrtimer_sleeper,
>>>> + timer)->task : NULL;
>>>
>>> This is a complete horrible hack. You're tying the task evaluation into a
>>> single instance of hrtimer users. What's the justification for this and why
>>> do you need task at all?
Makes only sense, if any, if wakeup latency histograms that store the task with
the highest latency so far are available. Initially, I wanted to give a short
explanation here why such internal histograms may be useful, but I found it
easier in a format where pictures of example latency plots and recordings can
be shown. So I wrote a short article on "Preemption latency of real-time Linux
systems" -> https://www.osadl.org/Single-View.111+M5246ebc55e3.0.html.
Hope this helps,
-Carsten.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists