Re: [PATCH] perf_events: Enable idle state tracing for pseries (ppc64)
From: Deepthi Dharwar
Date: Tue Jun 21 2011 - 12:41:33 EST
On Tuesday 21 June 2011 09:59 PM, deepthi wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 June 2011 03:12 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 22:48 +0530, deepthi wrote:
>>> On Friday 17 June 2011 09:54 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 18:05 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
>>>>> Please find below a patch, which has perf_events added for pseries (ppc64)
>>>>> platform in order to emit the trace required for perf timechart.
>>>>> It essentially enables perf timechart for pseries platfrom to analyse
>>>>> power savings events like cpuidle states.
>>>> Unless I'm mistaken, you added traces to dedicated CPU idle sleep but
>>>> not shared processor. Any reason ?
>>> Yes, the traces were added only to dedicated CPU idle sleep and not for
>>> shared processor. This was added only for RFC purpose, and looking for
>>> comments from trace implementation point of view. This can be
>>> easily extended to the latter too.
>> Please do both.
> Yes, I ll do so.
>>>> Also I don't really know that tracing stuff but what's the point of
>>>> having start/end _and trace_cpu_idle if you're going to always start &
>>>> end around a single occurence of trace_cpu_idle ?
>>> power_start/end are the APIs that were used initially
>>> and they are going to be deprecated in the upcoming kernel releases.
>>> trace_cpu_idle call is going to replace power start/end routines.
>>> To maintain backward compatibility and uniformity, both the routines
>>> have been used.
>> Backward compatible with what ? Userspace ? Do we care in that specific
>> case since it's a new feature ?
> Going forward, we can just have trace_cpu_idle call and
> remove the power_start/end calls.
>>>> Wouldn't there be a way to start/end and then trace the snooze and
>>>> subsequent cede within the same start/end section or that makes no
>>>> sense ?
>>> We wanted to find the residency time of both Snooze as well as cede
>>> separately. Knowing this will help us tweak our cpuidle code. So, both
>>> have been captured separately.
>>>> Also would there be any interest in doing the tracing more generically
>>>> in idle.c ?
>>> Yes, this tracing is already implemented for Intel platform. This would
>>> be a part of cpuidle framework. Going further, once the power cpuidle
>>> framework is ported and ready, we will extend this trace there as well.
>> So do we need to apply this patch at all since the cpuidle stuff is
>> happening too ?
> Well, not really. This is more for RFC purpose.
> I just wanted to share this patch, as we are using it to evaluate
> cpu idle on ppc64.
I will re-base the patch and move it to the cpu idle for power
framework. So the tracing too gets in along with the
cpu idle support.
>> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
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/