* Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:34:32PM +0900, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> > On 05/13/2014 04:22 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >* Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>trace_sched_wakeup(.success) is a dead argument and has been for ages,
> > >Always 0, or random value?
> >
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > It is always 1 currently.
> >
> > Peter believe that .success is not useful and I pointed that perf
> > sched latency is using it now. Then he post this patch to remove
> > the usage here.
> >
> > Please go to the following link for more about this issue.
>
> It is _not_ usable. You're proposing to abuse the existing
> parameter. A wakeup doing an enqueue or not has nothing
> _WHAT_SO_EVER_ to do with success.
>
> Now what I think you wanted to do is make it easier to match
> trace_sched_switch() statements with trace_sched_wakeup()
> statements. And since you only get the trace_sched_switch() on
> dequeue, you want to know which trace_sched_wakeup() calls did an
> enqueue.
>
> But that's completely and utterly unrelated to success.
So I always considered it 'the enqueue was successful' - that's I
think why I added it to 'perf sched' originally - to be able to trace
wakeups from originator to target.
Thans,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
