[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tuvij6da.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:58:09 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...eaurora.org>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
qais.yousef@....com, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
cai@....pw, tyhicks@...onical.com, arnd@...db.de
Cc: rameezmustafa@...eaurora.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpu/hotplug: Add cpuhp_latency trace event
On Wed, Sep 23 2020 at 16:37, Prasad Sodagudi wrote:
> Add ftrace event trace_cpuhp_latency to track cpu
> hotplug latency. It helps to track the hotplug latency
> impact by firmware changes and kernel cpu hotplug callbacks.
Why?
And even if that makes sense, the implementation makes absolutely no
sense at all.
trace_cpuhp_callback_enter();
callback();
trace_cpuhp_callback_exit();
No point in all this start time and conditional sched_clock() muck.
But then again, hotplug is slow by definition and nobody cares.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists