lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/4] ftrace: add max execution time mesurement to workqueue tracer
Date
> > 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).





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-15 02:33    [W:0.065 / U:3.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site