lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] trace power_frequency events on the correct cpu (for Intel x86 CPUs)
    From
    Date
    Am Mittwoch, den 24.03.2010, 08:07 +0100 schrieb Robert Schöne:
    > Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2010, 09:58 -0700 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
    > > On 3/23/2010 9:57, Thomas Renninger wrote:
    > > > On Tuesday 23 March 2010 17:28:36 Robert Schöne wrote:
    > > >> Am Montag, den 22.03.2010, 06:57 -0700 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
    > > >>> On 3/22/2010 0:04, Robert Schöne wrote:
    > > >>>> Am Sonntag, den 21.03.2010, 17:42 -0700 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
    > > >>>>> On 3/20/2010 14:37, Thomas Renninger wrote:
    > > >>>>>
    > > >>>>>> It also seem to be (hopefully) a minor feature for timechart, so this should
    > > >>>>>> not hurt that much (yet).
    > > >>>>>
    > > >>>>> It's actually a major feature for timechart, and one of the key things I and a bunch of others
    > > >>>>> inside Intel use timechart for.
    > > >>>>>
    > > >>>> It's a major feature for us too.
    > > >>>> I suppose, the cpufreq_notify_transition calls are correct (meaning
    > > >>>> being called for all related cpus) for every driver. So there's still
    > > >>>> the option to include it in the POST_CHANGE section of this function.
    > > >>>> Could this be okay for the both of you?
    > > >>>
    > > >>> post change would work... that gets frequency afaik..
    > > >> Are you ok with this too, Thomas?
    > > > You mean hooking it into cpufreq_stat_notifier_trans() in
    > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c?
    > >
    > > no
    > >
    > >
    > > hooking into the post frequency change callback that gets done..
    > > which is guaranteed to be on the right cpu afaics.
    > >
    > I don't see where this would be guaranteed. So I'd be fine with
    > a) adding it to
    > cpufreq.c/cpufreq_notify_transition/cpufreq_notify_transition
    >
    > b) adding an item to the cpufreq_transition_notifier_list
    >
    > c) adding it to cpufreq_stats.c/cpufreq_stat_notifier_trans
    >
    > which would imply the usage of smp_call_function_single(...)
    >
    I really want to keep this diskussion alive until there's a soultion we
    can all agree.
    So Arjan and Thomas, are there any comments/preferences to the proposed
    options?


    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-03-30 07:49    [W:0.027 / U:0.140 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site