Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:09:28 -0500 (EST) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |