Messages in this thread | | | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] ftrace: add max execution time mesurement to workqueue tracer | Date | Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:31:13 +0900 (JST) |
| |
> > May I explain my expected usage scenario? > > > > firstly, the developer check this stastics and nortice strage result. secondly > > the developer monitor workqueue activety by event-tracer. > > (it provide per work activety, maybe event filter feature is useful) > > > > Yes, I have to agree my last patch description is too poor. > > but I think my expected scenario is't so insane. > > > > Next, I hope to explain why I don't choice adding per work stastics. > > struct work can put in stack and it's short lived object. > > then, it isn't proper "stastics" target. > > > > I like my approach or histogram approach (suggested by ingo). > > > > May I ask your feeling to my usage scenario? > > Ok, I understand. This is a coupling of statistical tracing > and batch raw event tracing. > But a statistical view for every work per workqueue would > be definetly more helpful. > Beeing forced to look at the raw batch of work events involves > more searching in the traces and more headaches. > > With your patch, we only see the worst time case on a workqueue while > it would be better to find all the works which are encumbering > a workqueue, sorted by latency importance. > > I agree with the fact that it's not so easy though, because the works > can be allocated on the stack as you said.
ok. now, We agreed my patch works enough and your proposal is better, right? if so, we can discuss separetely per-work stastics and per-workqueue stastics.
I submitted per-workqueue stastics v3 today's later (or tomorrow).
| |