[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17f243a1-8977-4d52-aa26-d4556d62e12f@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 20:20:02 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>, "Juri
Lelli" <jlelli@...hat.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, "Ingo
Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
<linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Tomas Glozar <tglozar@...hat.com>, Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/15] sched: Add task enqueue/dequeue trace points
Hello Gabriele, Nam,
On 1/16/2026 6:09 PM, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
> @@ -2087,6 +2087,8 @@ unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p)
>
> void enqueue_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> {
For delayed task, I think you'll need:
if (trace_sched_enqueue_tp_enabled() && !(flags & ENQUEUE_DELAYED))
> + trace_sched_enqueue_tp(p, rq->cpu);
> +
> if (!(flags & ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK))
> update_rq_clock(rq);
Since delayed tasks haven't hit __block_task(), they are essentially
still enqueued. Peter should be able to confirm. Other than that,
the placements of the tracepoints look good now. Feel free to include:
Reviewed-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists