From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F591384CD1; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 07:25:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782977115; cv=none; b=qWzY9HIRefB1kc6W0ypukP6sVXCoCATAWD/NnYeSO84vLIm6cxWUOv8MWP4nID6YvPVGSR/c0YIbZ4RK1/Gw0E8ZytraigxBHSDbfEAMg6Saf0tDfTzd7GeSEuwmc9wepxQXkA8BPQJH1KPh2BOtZBgaJTuNgP7rlyGsOLenfkA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782977115; c=relaxed/simple; bh=n5z5qTTSNqAD50MPpfCiszBt8jZfAmtR/DrzWObXh3M=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BiFI4/F7dHka+o5fOAriOYAQ5o+OOSijQY4QKPGOVamndHhgTJxaG3y2cK4AWcpSfR409gbLmYhuDi9Ydp6wazW5TdsHx3c7GyFmLEXSuN7o7ejrVus+uCPBgs4PkBQwOs0XqVHgNMauoYLIjuyDdclz4JBELr5dViLb9gCp9Lw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=YDH7qtKI; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=nXozbYa/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="YDH7qtKI"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="nXozbYa/" From: Nam Cao DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1782977112; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=aEfPBz8t091mK8M23TmUS5ueXhjrCz5llTnQK6R0sfQ=; b=YDH7qtKI8zSAy+ZaxsMjxQaDi+56XZKBzp5q22tDg/9ixi5f/r4vFvIGJ5DFf6Yx38JXsk uuK48YPGajxY0nly5PF2pi672tYck4ftjwWHhURXAPIOxo8InlNPe88fd76h0PC1gALrHu gebsiL/iCgewJW1cLrnc403G0Uyw+QFB8JhnWTlA/LnWXnX9d0rxiAREwxNbc/7NrJcg/Y Dn157DyFw9kAsunHruBdRMtlkafTYxewlLPMhSyf35ch4GjwEf3pV6lSAQoJUN3yfrfc6L V5shrqy1fZxoFeOoETTDxpVr5CVonpHyqtoVXp6ZNKgarJ8250BHDkKMoAf/9g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1782977112; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=aEfPBz8t091mK8M23TmUS5ueXhjrCz5llTnQK6R0sfQ=; b=nXozbYa/awkVyg7K3/Ip0TKZExLgqXmxbWF4Il6PZjBAXd8k9tzkZRnmyZvM3YfPbV+NU4 mtUqGGFS9mKZJzAA== To: Gabriele Monaco Cc: Steven Rostedt , linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] rv/rtapp: Add wakeup monitor In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2026 09:25:11 +0200 Message-ID: <87ldbtvoo8.fsf@yellow.woof> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Gabriele Monaco writes: > This looks good, but if I understand it correctly, the same violation should be > spotted by both monitors from two different perspectives, but sleep catches more > things (e.g. tasks using wrong sleeping ways despite their wakeup): > > # perf stat -a -e rv:error_sleep -e rv:error_wakeup -- stress-ng --cpu 5 --cpu-load 90 --sched rr -t 5 > > Performance counter stats for 'system wide': > > 285 rv:error_sleep > 20 rv:error_wakeup > > Provided I don't really know what's happening down there (I just let the > stressor run free), this discrepancy is expected, right? Thanks for testing it. Beside monitoring low-prio task waking high-prio task, the rtapp/sleep monitor also checks that user uses the correct APIs for sleeping. So yes, this discrepancy is expected. Nam