From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Francis Giraldeau <francis.giraldeau@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: Fix sched_wakeup tracepoint
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:55:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1433746530.1495.28.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <600031664.4911.1433510581646.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 13:23 +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> sched_wakeup: when try_to_wake_up{,_local} is called in the waker.
> sched_activate_task: when the wakee is marked runnable.
> sched_switch: when scheduling actually happens.
>
> We can then calculate wakeup latency as
>
> time@sched_activate - time@sched_wakeup
One more thing, I think I would disagree with this. I would suggest
never to use the 'wakeup' (or 'waking' in my proposal) for timing. I
would suggest to use your interrupt tracepoint (or whatever else causes
wakeup to be called for this).
The wakeup times should be measured in tasktime -- of course, if
interrupts/preemption are disabled then tasktime == walltime.
The scheduling bit OTOH always needs to be measured in walltime, and is
most affected by the presence of other tasks on the system.
This too is why I'm not sure it makes sense to combine the two into a
single measurement. They should be measured in different time domains.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-08 6:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-05 11:41 [RFC PATCH] sched: Fix sched_wakeup tracepoint Mathieu Desnoyers
2015-06-05 12:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-06-05 12:32 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2015-06-05 12:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-06-05 13:23 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2015-06-06 12:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-06-07 10:20 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2015-06-08 17:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-06-09 9:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-06-09 18:48 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2015-06-17 18:23 ` Cong Wang
2015-06-17 18:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-08-03 17:06 ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Introduce the 'trace_sched_waking' tracepoint tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2015-06-08 6:55 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-06-09 5:53 ` [RFC PATCH] sched: Fix sched_wakeup tracepoint Mathieu Desnoyers
2015-06-05 12:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-05 12:36 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2015-06-05 12:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-06-08 16:54 ` Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1433746530.1495.28.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=francis.giraldeau@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox