[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190506144200.z4s63nm7untol2tr@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 15:42:00 +0100
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pavankumar Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Uwe Kleine-Konig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] sched: Add sched_load_rq tracepoint
On 05/06/19 09:52, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2019 11:08:59 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > These functions really should be called trace_*()
> >
> > Also; I _really_ hate how fat they are. Why can't we do simple straight
> > forward things like:
> >
> > trace_pelt_cfq(cfq);
> > trace_pelt_rq(rq);
> > trace_pelt_se(se);
> >
> > And then have the thing attached to the event do the fat bits like
> > extract the path and whatnot.
>
> I'd like to avoid functions called "trace_*" that are not trace events.
> It's getting confusing when I see a "trace_*()" function and then go
> look for the corresponding TRACE_EVENT() just to find out that one does
> not exist.
>
> sched_trace_*() maybe?
I can control that for the wrappers I'm introducing. But the actual tracepoint
get the 'trace_' part prepended automatically by the macros.
ie DECLARE_TRACE(pelt_rq, ...) will automatically generate a function called
trace_pelt_se(...)
Or am I missing something?
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists