lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] sched/debug: Add new tracepoint to track cpu_capacity
From
Date
On 28/08/2020 12:27, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 08/28/20 10:00, vincent.donnefort@arm.com wrote:
>> From: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
>>
>> rq->cpu_capacity is a key element in several scheduler parts, such as EAS
>> task placement and load balancing. Tracking this value enables testing
>> and/or debugging by a toolkit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>
> [...]
>
>> +int sched_trace_rq_cpu_capacity(struct rq *rq)
>> +{
>> + return rq ?
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> + rq->cpu_capacity
>> +#else
>> + SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE
>> +#endif
>> + : -1;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sched_trace_rq_cpu_capacity);
>> +
>
> The placement of this #ifdef looks odd to me. But FWIW
>
> Reviewed-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>

Returning -1 for cpu_capacity? It makes sense for sched_trace_rq_cpu()
but for cpu_capacity?

Can you remind me why we have all these helper functions like
sched_trace_rq_cpu_capacity?

In case we would let the extra code (which transforms trace points into
trace events) know the internals of struct rq we could handle those
things in the TRACE_EVENT and/or the register_trace_##name(void
(*probe)(data_proto), void *data) thing.
We always said when the internal things will change this extra code will
break. So that's not an issue.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-28 19:11    [W:0.114 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site