From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Todd E Brandt Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: trace events for suspend/resume Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 07:49:25 -0700 Message-ID: <20140530144925.GA26573@linux.intel.com> References: <20140519230226.GA14382@linux.intel.com> <20140522170734.GA11104@linux.intel.com> <1400798505.26671.9.camel@pippen.local.home> <1707167.dvsBe2mo72@vostro.rjw.lan> Reply-To: todd.e.brandt@linux.intel.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:30428 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755035AbaE3OtZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2014 10:49:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1707167.dvsBe2mo72@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Steven Rostedt , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Hi guys, I'm not hearing any objections to revamping the machine_suspend trace event, so I'll resubmit a patch with it removed and supplanted with the new suspend_resume event. I've also discovered that this first patch doesn't completely cover freeze, so I'm moving a couple of the calls around. On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 01:06:32AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, May 22, 2014 06:41:45 PM Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 10:07 -0700, Todd E Brandt wrote: > > > > > > > > #include > > > > > #include > > > > > @@ -835,7 +836,9 @@ acpi_status acpi_os_remove_interrupt_handler(u32 irq, acpi_osd_handler handler) > > > > > > > > > > void acpi_os_sleep(u64 ms) > > > > > { > > > > > + trace_suspend_resume("acpi_os_sleep", true); > > > > > msleep(ms); > > > > > + trace_suspend_resume("acpi_os_sleep", false); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > This function doesn't have anything to do with system suspend/resume. > > > > It is for waiting. :-) > > > > > > Yea but it really helps you diagnose bad firmware during suspend/resume > > > (for instance when there's just an arbitrary sleep 100ms in the ACPI code). > > > But it doesn't matter for general performance testing, I'll remove it on v2 > > > submit. > > > > > > > > > > > The rest of the patch looks OK to me. > > > > > > > > Steven, what about the tracing angle? > > > > It should be under an ACPI system (if there is one). Looks rather silly > > to call it for suspend. > > I meant the rest of the patch, not this particular hunk. :-) > > Rafael >