Hi Binoy,
On 08/30/2016 12:28 PM, Binoy Jayan wrote:
+static inline void trace_latency_preempt_mark_ts(enum latency_type ltype)
+{
+ this_cpu_write(lat_ts[ltype], (cycle_t) trace_clock_local());
+}
+
+static inline void latency_trace(enum latency_type type)
+{
+ trace_latency_preempt(type,
+ (cycle_t) trace_clock_local() - this_cpu_read(lat_ts[type]));
+}
As Masami has pointed out, the prefix trace_ should not be used. Also
having trace_latency_ and latency_trace_ is kind of confusing. What
about {start|stop}_latency_timing()? It would match the existing
{start|stop}_critical_timing(). Or is it too close and it leads to
confusion?
Another idea is {start|stop}_latency_preempt(). This matches the
trace_latency_preempt_enable() function.
cheers,
daniel
