[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG2=9p_-3p6N+xq0oyqwV=aYuHDKmYcM_uMpK2aJ1=8LLFi1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 20:45:22 +0800
From: Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@...aro.org>
To: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Ftrace Data Export
Hi Felipe,
On 17 May 2017 at 16:08, Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Chunyan,
>
> When you wrote your patchset to provide ftrace exports, why did you
> choose to export only function trace? Why not tracepoints,
In fact, I tried submitting patches[1] to do exporting tracepoint to
STM, but Ingo and Steven commented that would introduce certain amount
of overhead, and that was not acceptable. I also used
'benchmark_event' to see the additional overhead caused by printing
tracepoint message to STM. I cannot remember the exact data though,
the increased time consuming indeed was non-ignorable.
So at the end I gave up that idea, and later on switched to the way of
implementation you see in the kernel now.
> function_graph, hwlat, irqsoff and all the other possibilities?
I haven't thought about these clear enough :)
Any suggestion?
Thanks,
Chunyan
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/7/230
>
> Is there an underlying reason why you chose to export only function
> trace?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> balbi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists