From: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tracing/stat: sort in ascending order
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:09:24 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A1B4144.9060201@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090525154229.GA7121@nowhere>
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 04:46:09PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>> Currently the output of trace_stat/workqueues is totally reversed:
>>
>> # cat /debug/tracing/trace_stat/workqueues
>> ...
>> 1 17 17 210 37 `-blk_unplug_work+0x0/0x57
>> 1 3779 3779 181 11 |-cfq_kick_queue+0x0/0x2f
>> 1 3796 3796 kblockd/1:120
>> ...
>>
>> The correct output should be:
>>
>> 1 3796 3796 kblockd/1:120
>> 1 3779 3779 181 11 |-cfq_kick_queue+0x0/0x2f
>> 1 17 17 210 37 `-blk_unplug_work+0x0/0x57
>>
>> It's caused by "tracing/stat: replace linked list by an rbtree for sorting"
>> (53059c9b67a62a3dc8c80204d3da42b9267ea5a0).
>>
>> Though we can simply change dummy_cmp() to return -1 instead of 1, IMO
>> it's better to always do ascending sorting in trace_stat.c, and leave each
>> stat tracer to decide whether to sort in descending or ascending order.
>>
>> [ Impact: fix the output of trace_stat/workqueue ]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
>
>
> For now in stat tracing, the ascendent sorting is the most relevant.
> Especially because we always want to see the highest problems first.
>
Yeah, I saw this.
> -1 (or < 0) usually means lower and 1 ( > 0) is higher.
>
> I wonder what would most confuse the developers of stat tracers:
>
> - to reverse these common sort values (-1 turn into "higher")
> - keep the default ascendent sorting, which is not natural because the default
> is often descendent.
>
> I don't know.
>
> Anyone else. Do you have a preference?
>
When I looked into this bug, I was confused why it's descending sorting, though
then I found out the answer.
Imagine a new stat tracer wants to sort in ascending order, but it has to define
a cmp which compares in reverse order. This seems to be odd and confusing.
But to be honest, I'm also not sure which is better, And it doesn't seem to be
a big issue. So I think I'll make concessions.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-26 1:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-25 8:46 [PATCH 1/3] tracing/stat: sort in ascending order Li Zefan
2009-05-25 8:46 ` [PATCH 2/3] tracing/stat: simplify rbtree freeing code Li Zefan
2009-05-25 15:59 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-05-26 1:16 ` Li Zefan
2009-05-26 19:33 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-05-25 8:46 ` [PATCH 3/3] tracing/stat: do some cleanups Li Zefan
2009-05-25 15:42 ` [PATCH 1/3] tracing/stat: sort in ascending order Frederic Weisbecker
2009-05-26 1:09 ` Li Zefan [this message]
2009-05-26 20:46 ` Frederic Weisbecker
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=4A1B4144.9060201@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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