On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:23:00 -0700 Cong Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So how about we introduce the 'waking' tracepoint and leave the existing > > wakeup one in place and preserve its woken semantics. > > > > Steven, can we do aliases? Where one tracepoint is known to userspace > > under multiple names? In that case we could rename the thing to woken > > and have an alias wakeup which we can phase out over time. > > > > The patch also takes away the success parameter to the tracepoint, but > > does not quite go as far as actually removing it from the tracepoint > > itself. > > > > We can do that in a follow up patch which we can quickly revert if it > > turns out people are actually still using that for something. > > +1 to this patch. How is it going? It's not a top priority. But it shouldn't be too hard to implement. This could be something I do after the 4.2 merge window closes. -- Steve > > Here at Twitter, we are analyzing scheduling latencies too, with our > own tool using existing tracepoints, it would be nice to have more > granularity on the scheduling latency. > > And, you probably want to change perf sched to respect this > new 'waking' event too. ;) > > Thanks. -- 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/
