From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758095Ab0IUT1F (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:27:05 -0400 Received: from tx2ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com ([65.55.88.12]:8643 "EHLO TX2EHSOBE003.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757200Ab0IUT1D (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:27:03 -0400 X-SpamScore: -25 X-BigFish: VPS-25(zzbb2dK936eK146fK1432N98dN4015Lzz1202hzzz2fh2a8h) Message-ID: <4C9906EE.3030506@am.sony.com> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:26:38 -0700 From: Frank Rowand Reply-To: frank.rowand@am.sony.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090814 Fedora/3.0-2.6.b3.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Rostedt CC: Peter Zijlstra , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Gregory Haskins Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] tracing/sched: Add sched_rt_push and sched_rt_pull tracepoints References: <20100921024002.672817629@goodmis.org> <20100921024139.095017089@goodmis.org> <1285058793.2275.799.camel@laptop> <1285072416.23122.1723.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1285076187.23122.1809.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <1285076187.23122.1809.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Reverse-DNS: mail7.fw-bc.sony.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/21/10 06:36, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 08:33 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >>> Why doesn't the migration tracepoint cover this? It shows you the task, >>> the prio, the old and new cpu. If the migration is logged from the old >>> cpu, its a push, if its logged from the new its a pull, no? Slight nuance... If the migration is logged from a cpu other than the new cpu, it is a push. >> >> For some reason it did not help me enough in my analysis. I'll go back >> and see why. >> >> I originally had these tracepoints at the front of the series, and >> realized they may be a little controversial, thus I moved them to the >> end. > > OK, I went back and looked, and I think you are right. I can determine > this from the migration tracepoint. I think I was just being lazy and > wanted to have the direction obvious to me :-) I can easily do that by > adding a plugin. > > Anyway, I'll remove this patch and rename the sched_rt_setprio > tracepoint to sched_pi_setprio. Would that be OK with you? > > Thanks, > > -- Steve Regards, Frank