Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754029Ab3GAMov (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:44:51 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:49358 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752695Ab3GAMou (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:44:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:44:07 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Lei Wen Cc: Paul Turner , Alex Shi , Ingo Molnar , mingo@redhat.com, Kamalesh Babulal , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [V2 1/2] sched: add trace events for task and rq usage tracking Message-ID: <20130701124407.GB21726@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1372662634-12833-1-git-send-email-leiwen@marvell.com> <1372682002-15373-1-git-send-email-leiwen@marvell.com> <1372682002-15373-2-git-send-email-leiwen@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1372682002-15373-2-git-send-email-leiwen@marvell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2355 Lines: 59 On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:33:21PM +0800, Lei Wen wrote: > Since we could track task in the entity level now, we may want to > investigate tasks' running status by recording the trace info, so that > could make some tuning if needed. Why would I want to merge this? > + trace_sched_task_weighted_load(task_of(se), se->avg.load_avg_contrib, se->load.weight); > + trace_sched_task_weighted_load(task_of(se), se->avg.load_avg_contrib, se->load.weight); > + trace_sched_cfs_rq_runnable_load(cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq)), > + cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg, cfs_rq->load.weight); > + trace_sched_cfs_rq_blocked_load(cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq)), > + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg, > + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg + cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg); > + trace_sched_cfs_rq_blocked_load(cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq)), > + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg, > + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg + cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg); > + trace_sched_cfs_rq_blocked_load(cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq)), > + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg, > + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg + cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg); > + trace_sched_cfs_rq_runnable_load(cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq)), > + cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg, cfs_rq->load.weight); > + trace_sched_cfs_rq_blocked_load(cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq)), > + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg, > + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg + cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg); > + trace_sched_cfs_rq_blocked_load(cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq)), > + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg, > + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg + cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg); > + trace_sched_cfs_rq_blocked_load(cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq)), > + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg, > + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg + cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg); You're not lazy enough by far, you seem to delight in endless repetition :/ How about you first convince me we actually want to merge this; big hint, there's a significant lack of tracepoints in the entire balancer. Secondly; WTH didn't you do: trace_sched_task_weighted_load(se); trace_sched_cfs_rq_runnable_load(cfs_rq); trace_sched_cfs_rq_blocked_load(cfs_rq); The tracepoints themselves could very well extract whatever they want from that; no need to actually write it out. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/