On 21 September 2016 at 15:26, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> On 21 September 2016 at 06:27, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> >> +     TP_fast_assign(
>> >> +             __entry->second = rtc_time->tm_sec;
>> >> +             __entry->minute = rtc_time->tm_min;
>> >> +             __entry->hour = rtc_time->tm_hour;
>> >> +             __entry->day = rtc_time->tm_mday;
>> >> +             __entry->mon = rtc_time->tm_mon;
>> >> +             __entry->year = rtc_time->tm_year;
>> >> +             __entry->alarm_type = flag;
>> >
>> > What's the value of storing the alarm time in RTC format?
>>
>> As suggested by Steven, change the type of RTC value to save trace buffer.
>
> A single u64 does not take more storage space than this and it's a single
> store.

OK.

>
>> > 2) You store the expiry time again in RTC format. Store the information in
>> >    a plain u64 and be done with it.
>>
>> But I still think the RTC format is more readable for debugging alarm timer.
>
> That's what post processing is for.
>
>> > What's the point of this conditional? Avoiding rtc_ktime_to_tm() ? Oh 
>> > well...
>> >
>> >> +             tm_set = rtc_ktime_to_tm(now);
>> >> +             trace_alarmtimer_suspend(&tm_set, type);
>> >
>> > "now" is CLOCK_REALTIME based. You store the type of the alarm timer which
>> > is the first to expire and therefor is the one setting the RTC value, but
>> > we don't know which timer it is. Useful - NOT!
>>
>> We can know the timer by comparing the expire time.
>
> Please make it similar to the timer/hrtimer tracing so people can reuse
> their postprocessing scripts with minimial tweaks.

OK. Thanks.

-- 
Baolin.wang
Best Regards

Reply via email to