Messages in this thread | | | From | "Zhaolei" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] ftrace, workqueuetrace: Make workqueuetracepoints use TRACE_EVENT macro | Date | Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:30:03 +0800 |
| |
* From: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu> > > * Zhaolei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >> +TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_insertion, >> +TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_execution, >> +TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_creation, >> +TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_destruction, > > I'm missing all the worklet tracepoints i suggested. (and i think > which you had in earlier versions) > > Basically, i'd suggest the following complete set of events instead: > > TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_create > TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_flush /* NEW */ > TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_destroy > > TRACE_EVENT(worklet_enqueue /* NEW */ > TRACE_EVENT(worklet_enqueue_delayed /* NEW */ > > TRACE_EVENT(worklet_execute /* instead of workqueue_execution */ > TRACE_EVENT(worklet_complete /* NEW */ > > TRACE_EVENT(worklet_cancel /* NEW */ > > This allows the understanding of the life cycle of a workqueue and > of worklets that enter that workqueue. Note the distinction between > workqueue and worklet (work) - that is essential. Hello, Ingo
Thanks for your suggest. I read distinction between workqueue and worklet. In my schedule, this patch is first step of our target, my image of steps is: 1: Move current workqueuetracepoints into TRACEEVENT (this patch) 2: Make workqueuetrace support per-worklet output (doing) 3: Add time information to workqueuetrace's worklet stat (need above new TRACEPOINT)
So, i prepared to add new worklet tracepoints in step3. What's your opinion?
Thanks Zhaolei > > The parameters of the events are obvious, with one detail: i'd > suggest a 'cpu' parameter to the enqueue events, to allow the > mapping of the _on(..cpu) variants too. > > I would not bother with schedule_on_each_cpu() instrumentation - > it's rarely used. > > Ingo > > | |