Yeah -- this one is a real no brainer to move; looks good :)
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 10:48 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Thomas noted that we do the wakeup preemption check after the wakeup
>> trace point, this means the tracepoint cannot
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 10:48 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Thomas noted that we do the wakeup preemption check after the wakeup
> trace point, this means the tracepoint cannot test/report this decision;
> which is rather important for latency sensitive workloads. Therefore
> move the tracepoint
Thomas noted that we do the wakeup preemption check after the wakeup
trace point, this means the tracepoint cannot test/report this decision;
which is rather important for latency sensitive workloads. Therefore
move the tracepoint after doing the preemption check.
Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner
Thomas noted that we do the wakeup preemption check after the wakeup
trace point, this means the tracepoint cannot test/report this decision;
which is rather important for latency sensitive workloads. Therefore
move the tracepoint after doing the preemption check.
Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 10:48 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Thomas noted that we do the wakeup preemption check after the wakeup
trace point, this means the tracepoint cannot test/report this decision;
which is rather important for latency sensitive workloads. Therefore
move the tracepoint after
Yeah -- this one is a real no brainer to move; looks good :)
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 10:48 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Thomas noted that we do the wakeup preemption check after the wakeup
trace point, this means the
6 matches
Mail list logo
