Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757583AbZDXULW (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:11:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754644AbZDXULO (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:11:14 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:40019 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754291AbZDXULN (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:11:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:06:16 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Zhaolei Cc: mingo@elte.hu, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, tzanussi@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] workqueue_tracepoint: Add worklet tracepoints for worklet lifecycle tracing Message-Id: <20090424130616.a3c217cb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <49F1A59B.3080206@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <20090415085310.AC0D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090415011533.GI5968@nowhere> <20090415141250.AC46.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <49E8282A.6010004@cn.fujitsu.com> <49E82CA7.2040606@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090417134557.GA23493@elte.hu> <49F1A59B.3080206@cn.fujitsu.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1326 Lines: 31 On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:42:19 +0800 Zhaolei wrote: > These patchs add tracepoints for per-worklet tracing. > Now we have enough tracepoints to start makeing trace_workqueue.c support > worklet time mesurement. I'm not seing anywhere in this patchset a description of the user interface. What does the operator/programmer actually get to see from the kernel as a result of these changes? A complete usage example would be an appropriate way of communicating all of this. The patches introduce a moderate amount of tracing-specific hooks into the core workqueue code, which inevitably increases the maintenance load for that code. It is important that it be demonstrated that the benefts of the code are worth that cost. Hence it is important that these benefits be demonstrated to us, by yourself. Please. Another way of looking at it: which previously-encountered problems would this facility have helped us to solve? How will this facility help us to solve problems in the future? Looking at this patch series I cannot answer those questions! -- 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/