On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 14:28 +0100, Pawel Moll wrote: > On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 14:15 +0100, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > >>>> all 3 are already part of sample_id. > > >>> > > >>> You have to decide whether you expect to be able to use an event without > > >>> sample_id. MMAP and MMAP2 both have pid, tid which are in sample_id, > > >>> LOST > > >>> has id, EXIT and FORK have time, all of the THROTTLE/UNTHROTTLE members > > >>> are > > >>> in sample_id etc. So it currently looks like we expect to be able to > > >>> use an > > >>> event without requiring sample_id. > > > > > > The fact that there is this duplication is because sample_id_all came > > > after those events, but this new one being proposed doesn't have to do > > > it :-) > > > > Thanks, that's clear then. There will just need to be a flag to indicate > > whether it is scheduling in or out. > > Just a thought: wouldn't it be good to know what CPU have we been > scheduled from/to? This kind of information would be especially valuable > in heterogeneous systems.
Of course, cpu is a part of sample_id as well. I'm sorted out then :-) Pawel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
