lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] sched: add notifier for process migration
From
Date
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 09:05 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>
> > @@ -1981,6 +1989,12 @@ void set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int new_cpu)
> > #endif
> > perf_swcounter_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_CPU_MIGRATIONS,
> > 1, 1, NULL, 0);
> > +
> > + tmn.task = p;
> > + tmn.from_cpu = old_cpu;
> > + tmn.to_cpu = new_cpu;
> > +
> > + atomic_notifier_call_chain(&task_migration_notifier, 0, &tmn);
>
> We already have one event notifier there - look at the
> perf_swcounter_event() callback. Why add a second one for essentially
> the same thing?
>
> We should only put a single callback there - a tracepoint defined via
> TRACE_EVENT() - and any secondary users can register a callback to the
> tracepoint itself.
>
> There's many similar places in the kernel - with notifier chains and
> also with a need to get tracepoints there. The fastest (and most
> consistent) solution is to add just a single event callback facility.

But that would basically mandate tracepoints to be always enabled, do we
want to go there?

I don't think the overhead of tracepoints is understood well enough,
Jason you poked at that, do you have anything solid on that?

Also, I can imagine the embedded people to not want that.

I really like perf and tracepoints to not become co-dependent until
tracepoint become mandatory for all configurations.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-14 11:33    [W:0.063 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site