* From: "Ingo Molnar" <[email protected]>
>
> * Zhaolei <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> +TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_insertion,
>> +TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_execution,
>> +TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_creation,
>> +TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_destruction,
>
> I'm missing all the worklet tracepoints i suggested. (and i think
> which you had in earlier versions)
>
> Basically, i'd suggest the following complete set of events instead:
>
> TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_create
> TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_flush /* NEW */
> TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_destroy
>
> TRACE_EVENT(worklet_enqueue /* NEW */
> TRACE_EVENT(worklet_enqueue_delayed /* NEW */
>
> TRACE_EVENT(worklet_execute /* instead of workqueue_execution */
> TRACE_EVENT(worklet_complete /* NEW */
>
> TRACE_EVENT(worklet_cancel /* NEW */
>
> This allows the understanding of the life cycle of a workqueue and
> of worklets that enter that workqueue. Note the distinction between
> workqueue and worklet (work) - that is essential.
Hello, Ingo
Thanks for your suggest.
I read distinction between workqueue and worklet.
In my schedule, this patch is first step of our target, my image of steps is:
1: Move current workqueuetracepoints into TRACEEVENT (this patch)
2: Make workqueuetrace support per-worklet output (doing)
3: Add time information to workqueuetrace's worklet stat (need above new TRACEPOINT)
So, i prepared to add new worklet tracepoints in step3.
What's your opinion?
Thanks
Zhaolei
>
> The parameters of the events are obvious, with one detail: i'd
> suggest a 'cpu' parameter to the enqueue events, to allow the
> mapping of the _on(..cpu) variants too.
>
> I would not bother with schedule_on_each_cpu() instrumentation -
> it's rarely used.
>
> Ingo
>
>????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay? ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?
> Thanks for your suggest.
> I read distinction between workqueue and worklet.
> In my schedule, this patch is first step of our target, my image of steps is:
> 1: Move current workqueuetracepoints into TRACEEVENT (this patch)
> 2: Make workqueuetrace support per-worklet output (doing)
> 3: Add time information to workqueuetrace's worklet stat (need above new TRACEPOINT)
>
> So, i prepared to add new worklet tracepoints in step3.
> What's your opinion?
Zhao-san, Maintainer's easy reviewability is very important.
Can you switch 2 and 3 ?
it cause Ingo can review the patch fill his request or not directly.