[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5941f878-c523-5324-bf24-62da6f11ea9a@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:24:12 +0200
From: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Kate Carcia <kcarcia@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
Clark Willaims <williams@...hat.com>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] tracing: Add osnoise tracer
On 6/7/21 5:47 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> I am using these more "generic terms" because they are also used by the timerlat
>> tracer.
>>
>> In the timerlat tracer, the "in" file is used to stop the tracer for a given IRQ
>> latency (so, the "inside" operation), while the "out" is used to stop the tracer
>> in the thread latency (hence the outside operation).
>>
>> The total sounds good for the "out"! But the single does not work fine for the
>> IRQ... how about: stop_tracing_partial_us ?
>>
>> It is hard to find a good shared name :-/
> What about:
>
> stop_tracing_us and stop_tracing_total_us, and not have anything
> special for the first one?
I cannot find a better name... and it makes sense: if an "in" value on osnoise
or an IRQ latency on timerlat is higher than "stop_tracing_us"... it is more
important than the total... so it indeed deserves the more intuitive name.
(working on osnoise changes now...)
-- Daniel
> -- Steve
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists