[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8ea6adc5-faf5-d982-9a0e-7cf0a6f20b5f@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:10:36 +0100
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
cristian.marussi@....com, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] cpufreq: stats: Defer stats update to
cpufreq_stats_record_transition()
On 9/25/20 7:09 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24-09-20, 17:10, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> Because of supporting this reset file, the code is going to be a bit
>> complex
>
> I will say not very straight forward, but it isn't complex as well.
>
>> and also visited from the scheduler. I don't know if the
>> config for stats is enabled for production kernels but if yes,
>> then forcing all to keep that reset code might be too much.
>> For the engineering kernel version is OK.
>
> I am not sure either if they are enabled for production kernels, but even if it
> then also this code won't hit performance.
>
>> I would say for most normal checks these sysfs stats are very useful.
>> If there is a need for investigation like you described, the trace
>> event is there, just have to be enabled. Tools like LISA would
>> help with parsing the trace and mapping to some plots or even
>> merging with scheduler context.
>
> Right, but stats is much easier in my opinion and providing this reset
> functionality does make it easier to track. And that it is already there now.
>
>> From time to time some engineers are asking why the stats
>> don't show the values (missing fast-switch tracking). I think
>> they are interested in a simple use case, otherwise they would use the
>> tracing.
>
> Right and I completely agree with that and so this patchset. I think there
> aren't any serious race conditions here that would make things bad for anyone
> and that this patchset will eventually get in after a little rearrangement.
>
Fair enough, let see the final implementation. We can check it with perf
the speculative exec and cache util.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists