Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:25:33 -0500 | From | "Frank Ch. Eigler" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 19/20 -v5] Trace irq disabled critical timings |
| |
Hi -
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 06:58:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > [...] > > Is there an opportunity here to share effort with latencytop, and > > ideally to use markers as much as possible for these event hooks? > > I'm still thinking latencytop should only record stack traces and do the > rest in user-space. > > Also, the things the latency tracer and latecytop measure are quite > different. the latency tracer measures how long a non-schedulable > section is, latencytop measures how a task was scheduled away.
The commonality I imagine is not in what sorts of reports they create, or where they complete the formatting for and end-user. It is solely whether the kernel-side instrumentation sites can be represented by individual markers, so that these particular tools as well as future ones don't need to keep inserting custom code in similar or even the same places.
- FChE
| |