Re: perf,tools: Remove usage of trace_sched_wakeup(.success)

[Dongsheng Yang]

On 05/13/2014 07:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:34:32PM +0900, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> > On 05/13/2014 04:22 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > trace_sched_wakeup(.success) is a dead argument and has been for ages,
> > > Always 0, or random value?
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > It is always 1 currently.
> >
> > Peter believe that .success is not useful and I pointed that perf sched
> > latency
> > is using it now. Then he post this patch to remove the usage here.
> >
> > Please go to the following link for more about this issue.
> It is _not_ usable. You're proposing to abuse the existing parameter. A
> wakeup doing an enqueue or not has nothing _WHAT_SO_EVER_ to do with
> success.
>
> Now what I think you wanted to do is make it easier to match
> trace_sched_switch() statements with trace_sched_wakeup() statements.
> And since you only get the trace_sched_switch() on dequeue, you want to
> know which trace_sched_wakeup() calls did an enqueue.

Ha, yes, indeed. In perf sched latency, we need to know the timestamp
when a task enqueue and then we can calculate the delay time.
So I want to take the use of success parameter in trace_sched_wakeup()
to indicate that *this* wakeup did an enqueue.

But now I think it is okey if you really mind adding more tracepoints in
scheduler. And I posted a patch after your patch in this thread to make
perf sched latency work well.
> But that's completely and utterly unrelated to success.

--
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/