From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] devfreq_cooling: add trace information Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20150910131928.3c88fe28@gandalf.local.home> References: <1441904972-5809-1-git-send-email-javi.merino@arm.com> <1441904972-5809-5-git-send-email-javi.merino@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1441904972-5809-5-git-send-email-javi.merino@arm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Javi Merino Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cw00.choi@samsung.com, edubezval@gmail.com, Zhang Rui , Ingo Molnar List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:09:31 +0100 Javi Merino wrote: > Tracing is useful for debugging and performance tuning. Add similar > traces to what's present in the cpu cooling device. > > Cc: Zhang Rui > Cc: Eduardo Valentin > Cc: Steven Rostedt > Cc: Ingo Molnar > Signed-off-by: Javi Merino > --- > drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c | 6 +++++ > include/trace/events/thermal.h | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c > index a032c5d5c374..a27206815066 100644 > --- a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c > +++ b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c > @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ > #include > #include > > +#include > + > static DEFINE_MUTEX(devfreq_lock); > static DEFINE_IDR(devfreq_idr); > > @@ -293,6 +295,9 @@ static int devfreq_cooling_get_requested_power(struct thermal_cooling_device *cd > /* Get static power */ > static_power = get_static_power(dfc, freq); > > + trace_thermal_power_devfreq_get_power(cdev, status, freq, dyn_power, > + static_power); > + > *power = dyn_power + static_power; > > return 0; > @@ -348,6 +353,7 @@ static int devfreq_cooling_power2state(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev, > break; > > *state = i; > + trace_thermal_power_devfreq_limit(cdev, freq, *state, power); I'm curious, does changing the above to: trace_thermal_power_devfreq_limit(cdev, freq, i, power); make the compiled code better? A tracepoint does some whacky things, and gcc may not optimize this. The rest looks fine to me. -- Steve > return 0; > } \