Re: proposed change to cyclictest -b <n> behavior

[Nivedita Singhvi <niv@us.ibm.com>]

Clark Williams wrote:
> All,
> 
> I was updating cyclictest in the rt-tests package to handle the 3.0-rt
> kernel changes and was talking to Steven Rostedt about ftrace options
> and he suggested this change to the -b (breaktrace) option: use event
> tracing rather than function tracing by default. 
> 
> The default for -b is to enable the function tracer. What Steven is
> suggesting is to trace using the already installed tracepoints to get
> an idea of where a latency occurs, rather than incurring the function
> tracer (mcount) overhead by default. This is equivalent to doing:
> 
> # cyclictest -b 1000 --event --tracer=nop
> 
> I like the idea, but wanted to ask the cyclictest users if this would
> break anything. I actually think that the whole ftrace interface for
> cyclictest needs to be overhauled, since it was done very ad hoc and is
> not all that well thought out, but I'm not quite ready to take that on
> now. 
> 
> So, anyone object to me making this change?


This sounds good to me. I'd prefer not to incur the extra
unnecessary overhead, too.

thanks,
Nivedita