Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 23:33:43 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Pavankumar Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Uwe Kleine-Konig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] sched: Add new tracepoints required for EAS
 testing
Message-ID: <20190605223343.r42pgngvs7myzfke@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20190604111459.2862-1-qais.yousef@arm.com>
 <20190605061748.GA20661@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190605061748.GA20661@infradead.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 06/04/19 23:17, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > The following patches add the bare minimum tracepoints required to perform EAS
> > testing in Lisa[1].
> 
> What is EAS?  Whhy is "Lisa" not part of the patch submission?
> submission.

EAS is Energy Aware Scheduling. It was merged in 5.0.

Lisa is a python based testing platform that has dependency on other binaries
like trace-cmd, rt-app, etc. It is not suitable for kernel submission.

Lisa, or any userspace based testing for that matter, requires to know what's
happening inside the scheduler to test its behavior. I don't know know of any
other scheduler centric testing framework. I didn't intend to specify Lisa as
the sole user and reason for these tracepoints, I know others are interested in
these tracepoints in general for anyone who wants to achieve a similar goal of
studying scheduler PELT behavior and how it affects some of the decisions it
makes.

We had a talk in OSPM a couple of weeks ago to cover this topic if you're
interested to learn more

	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_MZ9XS3_zc

> 
> > It is done in this way because adding new TRACE_EVENTS() is no longer accepted
> > AFAIU.
> 
> Huh?  We keep adding trace events all the time.  And they actually
> are useful because they are testable.
> 
> This series on the other hand adds exports not used in tree, which is
> a big no-go.

I see that Peter has already covered this part.

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef