lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: PATCH] ftrace: Add a C/P state tracer to help power optimization

    * Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com> wrote:

    > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 02:06:30PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > > > Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> writes:
    > > >
    > > > > [...]
    > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
    > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
    > > > > [...]
    > > > > @@ -427,6 +429,8 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_target(struct
    > > > > cpufreq_policy *policy, }
    > > > > }
    > > > >
    > > > > + trace_power_mark(&it, POWER_PSTATE, next_perf_state);
    > > > > +
    > > > > switch (data->cpu_feature) {
    > > > > case SYSTEM_INTEL_MSR_CAPABLE:
    > > > > cmd.type = SYSTEM_INTEL_MSR_CAPABLE;
    > > > > [...]
    > > >
    > > > Is there some reason that this doesn't use tracepoints instead
    > > > of such a single-backend hook?
    > >
    > > because it's a ton simpler this way? do simple things simpe and all
    > > that....
    > >
    >
    > hi,
    >
    > I wrote a patch to make c/p state tracer dependent on tracepoints and
    > then realized that the discussion had already been had. However, the
    > patch to use tracepoints is fairly simple, allows for other consumers,
    > and avoids a function call in the off case. please consider.
    >
    > thanks,
    >
    > -Jason
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>
    >
    > ---
    >
    > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 3 +++
    > arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 4 ++++
    > include/linux/ftrace.h | 15 ---------------
    > include/trace/power.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
    > kernel/trace/trace_power.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
    > 5 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
    > create mode 100644 include/trace/power.h

    Looks good, but could you please base this on latest -tip? There's a number of
    pending changes in the tracing tree that conflict:

    patching file arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
    Hunk #1 FAILED at 34.
    1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file
    arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
    patching file arch/x86/kernel/process.c
    Hunk #1 FAILED at 9.
    1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file arch/x86/kernel/process.c
    patching file include/linux/ftrace.h
    Hunk #1 FAILED at 342.
    1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- rejects in file include/linux/ftrace.h
    The next patch would create the file include/trace/power.h,
    which already exists! Applying it anyway.
    patching file include/trace/power.h
    Patch attempted to create file include/trace/power.h, which already exists.
    Hunk #1 FAILED at 1.
    1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- rejects in file include/trace/power.h
    patching file kernel/trace/trace_power.c
    Hunk #1 FAILED at 14.
    Hunk #2 succeeded at 111 (offset 1 line).
    Hunk #4 succeeded at 148 (offset -5 lines).
    Hunk #5 succeeded at 183 (offset -6 lines).
    1 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file kernel/trace/trace_power.c

    See:

    http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-02-11 10:33    [W:0.027 / U:0.392 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site