From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: Request for DIscussion: Cpufreq logging, and frequency floors Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:01:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20111024000158.GA19078@redhat.com> References: <465E946FB313F242A955E3365C8D13A510491297@ushqwmb10> <20111023114802.GA15272@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111023114802.GA15272@sirena.org.uk> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Mark Brown Cc: "Steven Finney (Palm GBU)" , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:48:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:31:57PM -0700, Steven Finney (Palm GBU) wrote: > > > 2) The ability to keep a diagnostic log of all the frequency changes so, > > e.g., it's possible to determine if bad behavior (e.g. dropouts) is > > correlated with a low frequency. > > This is a really good and useful idea but it seems to me like it would > be better done with the standard trace subsystem - that provides good > facilities for enabling and disabling the trace as needed and would make > it easy to tie in with the other subsystems that are in play. Indeed. This sounds like the direction to go towards. Having played a little with Steven Rostedt's kernelshark tool, I could see interesting things coming from being able to correlate transitions with other system events graphically. Dave