Re: PATCH] ftrace: Add a C/P state tracer to help poweroptimization

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Oct 28 2008 - 06:04:32 EST



* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:47:30 -0400
> fche@xxxxxxxxxx (Frank Ch. Eigler) wrote:
>
> >
> > Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> > > [...]
> > > @@ -427,6 +429,8 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_target(struct
> > > cpufreq_policy *policy, }
> > > }
> > >
> > > + trace_power_mark(&it, POWER_PSTATE, next_perf_state);
> > > +
> > > switch (data->cpu_feature) {
> > > case SYSTEM_INTEL_MSR_CAPABLE:
> > > cmd.type = SYSTEM_INTEL_MSR_CAPABLE;
> > > [...]
> >
> > Is there some reason that this doesn't use tracepoints instead
> > of such a single-backend hook?
>
> because it's a ton simpler this way? do simple things simpe and all
> that....

correct.

Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/