From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (e35.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e35.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39E1BB6F81 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 02:41:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p5LGNPu5006599 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:23:25 -0600 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p5LGfG7r079352 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:41:19 -0600 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p5LGfCF2014040 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:41:13 -0600 Message-ID: <4E00C977.1060800@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:10:23 +0530 From: Deepthi Dharwar 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> <4DFF80FD.8080600@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1308606133.32158.143.camel@pasglop> <4E00C6DE.1030001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4E00C6DE.1030001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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 Tuesday 21 June 2011 09:59 PM, deepthi wrote: > On Tuesday 21 June 2011 03:12 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 22:48 +0530, deepthi wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Please do both. >> > Yes, I ll do so. > >>>> 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/2010/11/14/60ref:https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/14/60) >> >> Backward compatible with what ? Userspace ? Do we care in that specific >> case since it's a new feature ? >> > Going forward, we can just have trace_cpu_idle call and > remove the power_start/end calls. > >>>> 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) >> >> So do we need to apply this patch at all since the cpuidle stuff is >> happening too ? >> > > Well, not really. This is more for RFC purpose. > I just wanted to share this patch, as we are using it to evaluate > cpu idle on ppc64. > I will re-base the patch and move it to the cpu idle for power framework. So the tracing too gets in along with the cpu idle support. Thanks Ben. >> Cheers, >> Ben. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Linuxppc-dev mailing list >> Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org >> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev Regards, Deepthi