Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1472425
| From | Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] tracing: Add trace_irqsoff tracepoints |
| Date | 2016-08-30 13:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbPyx-4bb-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sbOsN-3yX-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <sbOsN-3yX-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi Binoy,
On 08/30/2016 12:28 PM, Binoy Jayan wrote:
> +static inline void trace_latency_preempt_mark_ts(enum latency_type ltype)
> +{
> + this_cpu_write(lat_ts[ltype], (cycle_t) trace_clock_local());
> +}
> +
> +static inline void latency_trace(enum latency_type type)
> +{
> + trace_latency_preempt(type,
> + (cycle_t) trace_clock_local() - this_cpu_read(lat_ts[type]));
> +}
As Masami has pointed out, the prefix trace_ should not be used. Also
having trace_latency_ and latency_trace_ is kind of confusing. What
about {start|stop}_latency_timing()? It would match the existing
{start|stop}_critical_timing(). Or is it too close and it leads to
confusion?
Another idea is {start|stop}_latency_preempt(). This matches the
trace_latency_preempt_enable() function.
cheers,
daniel
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v4 2/3] tracing: Add trace_irqsoff tracepoints Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@linaro.org> - 2016-08-30 12:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] tracing: Add trace_irqsoff tracepoints Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> - 2016-08-30 13:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] tracing: Add trace_irqsoff tracepoints Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@linaro.org> - 2016-08-30 13:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] tracing: Add trace_irqsoff tracepoints Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-08-30 16:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] tracing: Add trace_irqsoff tracepoints Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@linaro.org> - 2016-08-31 13:40 +0200
csiph-web