Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753355AbZKQPYi (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:24:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751198AbZKQPYi (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:24:38 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26888 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751011AbZKQPYh (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:24:37 -0500 Message-ID: <4B02C0A6.9030605@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:26:30 -0500 From: Masami Hiramatsu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090922 Fedora/3.0-2.7.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Roland McGrath , lkml , systemtap , DLE Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 3/3] Add get_signal tracepoint References: <20091113225226.15079.90813.stgit@harusame> <20091113225240.15079.4863.stgit@harusame> <20091113235333.0E3CC15E8@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20091114001020.GB24738@elte.hu> <4B01C95B.1070302@redhat.com> <20091117060130.GB30852@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20091117060130.GB30852@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1695 Lines: 51 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > >>> - signal IPI/wakeup events >> >> All signals might be used for IPI, isn't it? :-) > > I mean, to analyze the various dynamic delivery details of how a signal > send affects a target task: > > 1) which task/PID was selected to be woken > > 2) if the task got woken (from sleep) due to the signal sending > > 3) if it was already woken, whether it needed an IPI via kick_process() Hmm, as far as I can see, some of these events can be caught by sched layer too. - trace_signal_send() will record target task. - wake_up_state() just calls try_to_wake_up(), and trace_sched_wakeup() will be called from it. - kick_process() might better have its own tracepoint. And also, I think signal_wake_up() might not be a good tracepoint for signal event, since there is no signr. Moreover some signal_wake_up() caller(e.g. recalc_sigpending*) silently wake up processes :-(. > What proportion of signals were wakeups and what proportion hit an > already running task is a relevant question to ask when analyzing the > performance characteristics of signals. Hmm, does it really require wakeup events in signal layer? I think that we can analyze the characteristics by combination of signal events and sched events. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com -- 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/