On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:58:00AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:45:25 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:37:04AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > This also wasn't the last version of the patch, I distinctly remember
> > you making me update s
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:45:25 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:37:04AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> This also wasn't the last version of the patch, I distinctly remember
> you making me update some documentation crap.
Hmm, the later patches must be lost in my INBOX, whic
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:37:04AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:29:08 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Subject: ftrace, sched: Add TRACE_FLAG_PREEMPT_RESCHED
> > From: Peter Zijlstra
> > Date: Fri Sep 27 17:11:00 CEST 2013
> >
> > Since we now have two need_resched s
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:29:08 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Subject: ftrace, sched: Add TRACE_FLAG_PREEMPT_RESCHED
> From: Peter Zijlstra
> Date: Fri Sep 27 17:11:00 CEST 2013
>
> Since we now have two need_resched states; trace the two so we can
> observe discrepancies.
I see this is dependent
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 11:57:12AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > + need-resched:
> > + 'N' both TIF_NEED_RESCHED and PREEMPT_NEED_RESCHED is set,
> > + 'n' only TIF_NEED_RESCHED is set,
> > + 'p' only PREEMPT_NEED_RESCHED is set,
> > + '.' otherwise.
>
> Yes this is actually good enoug
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 17:28:26 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 10:53:42AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > In other words, what does these flags in the trace actually mean?
> > Probably need to add comments in the code and/or update the
> > Documentation section
>
> If "task n
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 10:53:42AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> In other words, what does these flags in the trace actually mean?
> Probably need to add comments in the code and/or update the
> Documentation section
If "task need resched" is supposed to explain things; the below too will
suffice
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 17:16:18 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Documentation section
>
> Ah, you missed the preemption series?
Yeah, I've seen them, just haven't looked at them too deeply yet.
>
> 1a338ac32ca6 sched, x86: Optimize the preempt_schedule() call
> c2daa3bed53a sched, x86: Provide a pe
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 10:53:42AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 10:09:09 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:29:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Subject: ftrace, sched: Add TRACE_FLAG_PREEMPT_RESCHED
> > > From: Peter Zijlstra
> > > Date: Fr
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 10:09:09 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:29:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Subject: ftrace, sched: Add TRACE_FLAG_PREEMPT_RESCHED
> > From: Peter Zijlstra
> > Date: Fri Sep 27 17:11:00 CEST 2013
> >
> > Since we now have two need_resched states
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:29:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Subject: ftrace, sched: Add TRACE_FLAG_PREEMPT_RESCHED
> From: Peter Zijlstra
> Date: Fri Sep 27 17:11:00 CEST 2013
>
> Since we now have two need_resched states; trace the two so we can
> observe discrepancies.
>
> Cc: Steven Ros
Subject: ftrace, sched: Add TRACE_FLAG_PREEMPT_RESCHED
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Fri Sep 27 17:11:00 CEST 2013
Since we now have two need_resched states; trace the two so we can
observe discrepancies.
Cc: Steven Rostedt
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra
---
kernel/trace/trace.c|3 ++-
12 matches
Mail list logo
