From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com (e6.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e6.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EC2CB6F83 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 03:19:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (d01relay03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.235]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p5KGtXZT013195 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:55:33 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p5KHJfIW144818 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:19:41 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p5KDJSZP023861 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:19:29 -0300 Message-ID: <4DFF80FD.8080600@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:48:53 +0530 From: deepthi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: Enable idle state tracing for pseries (ppc64) References: <20110601123554.GA12492@deepthi.in.ibm.com> <1308284659.32158.4.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1308284659.32158.4.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Friday 17 June 2011 09:54 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 18:05 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Please find below a patch, which has perf_events added for pseries (ppc64) >> platform in order to emit the trace required for perf timechart. >> It essentially enables perf timechart for pseries platfrom to analyse >> power savings events like cpuidle states. > > Unless I'm mistaken, you added traces to dedicated CPU idle sleep but > not shared processor. Any reason ? > Yes, the traces were added only to dedicated CPU idle sleep and not for shared processor. This was added only for RFC purpose, and looking for comments from trace implementation point of view. This can be easily extended to the latter too. > Also I don't really know that tracing stuff but what's the point of > having start/end _and trace_cpu_idle if you're going to always start & > end around a single occurence of trace_cpu_idle ? > power_start/end are the APIs that were used initially and they are going to be deprecated in the upcoming kernel releases. trace_cpu_idle call is going to replace power start/end routines. To maintain backward compatibility and uniformity, both the routines have been used. (ref:https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/14/60) > Wouldn't there be a way to start/end and then trace the snooze and > subsequent cede within the same start/end section or that makes no > sense ? > We wanted to find the residency time of both Snooze as well as cede separately. Knowing this will help us tweak our cpuidle code. So, both have been captured separately. > Also would there be any interest in doing the tracing more generically > in idle.c ? > Yes, this tracing is already implemented for Intel platform. This would be a part of cpuidle framework. Going further, once the power cpuidle framework is ported and ready, we will extend this trace there as well. (ref:https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/6/7/375) > Cheers, > Ben. > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev Regards, Deepthi