lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] tracing: add event trace infrastructure

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Yeah, maybe that file (latency_trace) is a bit too much. I for
> > one love it. It is great to load a kernel on some remote box,
> > and run the irqs off latency tracer to see where the
> > interrupts are disabled for the longest time. This format is
> > really nice because it shows me when we are in an interrupt,
> > or interrupts are disabled, and when the task should have been
> > rescheduled.
> >
> > This has help find places that we miss a preemption check too.
>
> Could we get that, as PeterZ has suggested, as a trace_option
> column in the 'trace' file? It would be default off for
> non-latency tracers, with latency tracing plugins turning it on
> by default. Would that work?

Sure, I'd be fine with it as an option. I just don't want to
completely lose the ability to retrieve that information.

-- Steve



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-25 17:13    [W:0.072 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site