Re: [PATCH] tracing, perf : add cpu hotplug trace events

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:50:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Please find below a proposal for adding new trace events for cpu
> hotplug.The goal is to measure the latency of each part (kernel,
> architecture and platform) and also to trace the cpu hotplug activity
> with other power events. I have tested these traces events on an arm
> platform
> 
> Comments are welcome.
> 
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:22:21 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] hotplug tracepoint
> 
> this patch adds new events for cpu hotplug tracing
> * plug/unplug sequence
> * architecture and machine latency measurements
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/trace/events/hotplug.h |   71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 include/trace/events/hotplug.h
> 
> diff --git a/include/trace/events/hotplug.h b/include/trace/events/hotplug.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..51c86ab
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/trace/events/hotplug.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
> +#undef TRACE_SYSTEM
> +#define TRACE_SYSTEM hotplug
> +
> +#if !defined(_TRACE_HOTPLUG_H) || defined(TRACE_HEADER_MULTI_READ)
> +#define _TRACE_HOTPLUG_H
> +
> +#include <linux/ktime.h>
> +#include <linux/tracepoint.h>
> +
> +#ifndef _TRACE_HOTPLUG_ENUM_
> +#define _TRACE_HOTPLUG_ENUM_
> +enum hotplug_type {
> + HOTPLUG_UNPLUG = 0,
> + HOTPLUG_PLUG = 1
> +};
> +
> +enum hotplug_step {
> + HOTPLUG_KERNEL = 0,
> + HOTPLUG_ARCH = 1,
> + HOTPLUG_MACH = 2
> +};
> +#endif
> +
> +TRACE_EVENT(hotplug_start,

hotplug is way too generic.

cpu_hotplug may be?

> +
> + TP_PROTO(unsigned int type, unsigned int step, unsigned int cpuid),

I feel a bit uncomfortable with these opaque type and step.

What about splitting the events:

	cpu_down_start
	cpu_down_end

	cpu_up_start
	cpu_up_end

This ways they are much more self-explanatory.

I also feel uncomfortable about exposing arch step details in core
tracepoints.

But if we consider the following sequence:

	cpu_down() {
		__cpu_disable() {
			platform_cpu_disable();
		}
	}

Then exposing start/end of cpu_disable() makes sense, by way of:

	cpu_arch_disable_start
        cpu_arch_disable_end

        cpu_arch_enable_start
        cpu_arch_enable_end


	cpu_arch_die_start
        cpu_arch_die_end

        cpu_arch_die_start
        cpu_arch_die_end

Because they are arch events that you can retrieve everywhere, the tracepoints
are still called from the code code.

Now for the machine part, it's very highly arch specific, most notably for arm
so I wonder if it would make more sense to keep that seperate into arch
tracepoints.

How does that all look? I hope I'm not overengineering.

Creating such series of similar tracepoints is quite easy and quick using
DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS and DEFINE_EVENT.

> +
> + TP_ARGS(type, step, cpuid),
> +
> + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> + __field(u32, type)
> + __field(u32, step)
> + __field(u32, cpuid)
> + ),

And please use a proper indentation for trace_events.
You can have a look at the examples in include/trace/events/
--
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/