Re: [PATCH 2/4] tracing: add event trace infrastructure

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Yeah, maybe that file (latency_trace) is a bit too much. I for 
> > one love it. It is great to load a kernel on some remote box, 
> > and run the irqs off latency tracer to see where the 
> > interrupts are disabled for the longest time. This format is 
> > really nice because it shows me when we are in an interrupt, 
> > or interrupts are disabled, and when the task should have been 
> > rescheduled.
> > 
> > This has help find places that we miss a preemption check too.
> 
> Could we get that, as PeterZ has suggested, as a trace_option 
> column in the 'trace' file? It would be default off for 
> non-latency tracers, with latency tracing plugins turning it on 
> by default. Would that work?

Sure, I'd be fine with it as an option. I just don't want to 
completely lose the ability to retrieve that information.

-- Steve

--
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/