On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:36:40PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:21 PM Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> > One question on this; why is this tracked unconditionally?
>
> Because I didn't quite see how to make that conditional in a sensible way.
Something like:
if (static_branch_unlikely(__tracepoint_idle_above) ||
static_branch_unlikely(__tracepoint_idle_below)) {
// do stuff that calls trace_idle_above() /
// trace_idle_below().
}
> These things are counters and counting with the help of tracepoints
> isn't particularly convenient (and one needs debugfs to be there to
> use tracepoints and they require root access etc).
Root only should not be a problem for a developer; and aren't these
numbers only really interesting if you're prodding at the idle governor?
> > Would not a tracepoint be better?; then there is no overhead in the
> > normal case where nobody gives a crap about these here numbers.
>
> There is an existing tracepoint that in principle could be used to
> produce this information, but it is such a major PITA in practice that
> nobody does that. Guess why. :-)
Sounds like you need to ship a convenient script or something :-)
> Also, the "usage" and "time" counters are there in sysfs, so why not these
> two?
>
> And is the overhead really that horrible?
Dunno; it could be cold cachelines, at which point it can be fairly
expensive. Also, being stuck with API is fairly horrible if you want to
'fix' it.
