Re: [PATCH 27/30] workqueue: implement DEBUGFS/workqueue

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On 06/15/2010 03:54 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> I don't like this. This adds 300 lines of ad hoc in-kernel
> instrumentation code while we now have a nice kernel tracing API
> (trace events) coupled with easy userspace tools to post-process
> that (perf trace scripting). And this is going to provide a much
> more powerful view of your new workqueue implementation runtime
> behaviour.
>
> We already have kernel/trace/trace_workqueue.c that has been
> obsolated for these very reasons and we are even going to remove it
> soon, probably for .36
>
> Please work with us for that, if everybody makes his own corner
> instrumentation, we are not going to make any progress in having a
> powerful and unified tracing/profiling.
>
> The first step is to pinpoint the important places that need
> tracepoints, and then just write a perf trace script to use the
> provided informations by these tracepoints.
> 
> I can help about that if needed.

Yeah, I agree that trace would be better way to do it.  This patch was
added because slow-work had similar facility and David was unhappy
about losing easy way to monitor if cmwq replaces slow-work.  I'll be
happy to drop this one.  David, what do you think?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/