From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rostedt@goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:14:51 -0400 Subject: [PATCH v2] arm: add cpu_idle tracepoints to arch_cpu_idle In-Reply-To: <20150917164424.513801a6@xhacker> References: <1442424760-4104-1-git-send-email-jszhang@marvell.com> <20150917160744.52400e0e@xhacker> <20150917164424.513801a6@xhacker> Message-ID: <20150917091451.28ce10af@gandalf.local.home> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:44:24 +0800 Jisheng Zhang wrote: > Dear Steven, > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:07:44 +0800 > Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:32:40 +0800 > > Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > > > Currently, if cpuidle is disabled or not supported, powertop reports > > > zero wakeups and zero events. This is due to the cpu_idle tracepoints > > > are missing. > > > > > > This patch is to make cpu_idle tracepoints always available even if > > > cpuidle is disabled or not supported. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang > > > --- > > > Since v1: > > > - ignore arm_pm_idle. > > > > Something related: let's have a look at arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c > > the omap3_pm_idle(void) function, it uses trace_cpu_idle(), should we > > use the _rcuidle version as below: > > 484546509ce5 ("x86/tracing: Denote the power and cpuidle tracepoints as > _rcuidle()") make me think we need to fix omap3_pm_idle, right? > Probably. If those tracepoints can be called after rcu_idle_enter() (see cpuidle_idle_call()), then yes. -- Steve