[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z-6lPadt51e7jcXd@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:11:57 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
mhocko@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, brauner@...nel.org,
glider@...gle.com, mhiramat@...nel.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] exit: move and extend sched_process_exit() tracepoint
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:54:22 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > This feels really fragile, could you please at least add a comment
> > that points out that this is basically an extension of
> > sched_process_template, and that it should remain a subset of it,
> > or something to that end?
>
> Is there any dependency on this?
>
> I don't know of any other dependency to why this was a template other than
> to save memory.
Uhm, to state the obvious: to not replicate the same definitions over
and over again three times times, for 3 scheduler tracepoints that
share the record format?
Removing just a single sched_process_template use bloats the source and
adds in potential fragility:
2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
So my request is to please at least add a comment that points the
reader to the shared record format between sched_process_exit and the
other two tracepoints.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists