On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 11:22 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 07:33:50PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > On the title you have 'fi', but I think you meant 'fix'. > Indeed, sorry for that.
> > so that they actually live in the functions that > > do the scheduling related domain initialization and > > destruction. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> > > .. would it make sense to have an overall high-level > 'DOM_ADD' and 'DOM_REM' trace ? > > Especially as it is useful for figuring out how long > an domain destruction takes time (based on the initial > trace to say this TRC_SCHED_REM)? > I think it makes sense, and I can either do this in this patch (and resend) or as a follow up. I guess the only possible concern is that we may introduce too much tracing, to the point that it hurts performance, even when not enabled. (I was starting to think about this anyway, as I've got other series, either posted or in my queues, that adds a few more tracepoints, because they're so damn useful! ;-P) In that case, I guess we could think of doing something similar to what ftrace does in Linux --for disabling and enabling tracing and tracepoints-- which should be more lightweight than what we do. In any case, none of this applies to a "DOM_ADD" / "DOM_REM" tracing events. :-) Thanks and Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
