Re: [PATCH] cyclictest: stop any tracing after hitting a breaktrace threshold

2016-05-04 Thread John Kacur
On Wed, 4 May 2016, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Tue, 3 May 2016 15:28:39 -0500 > Clark Williams wrote: > > > The intent is to be able to do something like this: > > > > trace-cmd start -e all -p function > > rteval --duration=12h --cyclictest-breaktrace=150 > >

Re: [PATCH] cyclictest: stop any tracing after hitting a breaktrace threshold

2016-05-04 Thread John Kacur
On Wed, 4 May 2016, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Tue, 3 May 2016 15:28:39 -0500 > Clark Williams wrote: > > > The intent is to be able to do something like this: > > > > trace-cmd start -e all -p function > > rteval --duration=12h --cyclictest-breaktrace=150 > > trace-cmd extract

Re: [PATCH] cyclictest: stop any tracing after hitting a breaktrace threshold

2016-05-04 Thread Luiz Capitulino
On Tue, 3 May 2016 15:28:39 -0500 Clark Williams wrote: > The intent is to be able to do something like this: > > trace-cmd start -e all -p function > rteval --duration=12h --cyclictest-breaktrace=150 > trace-cmd extract Ah, ok, I get it now. This makes sense.

Re: [PATCH] cyclictest: stop any tracing after hitting a breaktrace threshold

2016-05-04 Thread Luiz Capitulino
On Tue, 3 May 2016 15:28:39 -0500 Clark Williams wrote: > The intent is to be able to do something like this: > > trace-cmd start -e all -p function > rteval --duration=12h --cyclictest-breaktrace=150 > trace-cmd extract Ah, ok, I get it now. This makes sense. I think I'd refactor

Re: [PATCH] cyclictest: stop any tracing after hitting a breaktrace threshold

2016-05-03 Thread Clark Williams
On Tue, 3 May 2016 15:56:44 -0400 Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Tue, 3 May 2016 12:59:53 -0500 > Clark Williams wrote: > > > John, > > > > This patch is against the devel/v0.98 branch. It turns off tracing in the > > tracemark() so that we don't

Re: [PATCH] cyclictest: stop any tracing after hitting a breaktrace threshold

2016-05-03 Thread Clark Williams
On Tue, 3 May 2016 15:56:44 -0400 Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Tue, 3 May 2016 12:59:53 -0500 > Clark Williams wrote: > > > John, > > > > This patch is against the devel/v0.98 branch. It turns off tracing in the > > tracemark() so that we don't lose information about what was going on when >

Re: [PATCH] cyclictest: stop any tracing after hitting a breaktrace threshold

2016-05-03 Thread Luiz Capitulino
On Tue, 3 May 2016 12:59:53 -0500 Clark Williams wrote: > John, > > This patch is against the devel/v0.98 branch. It turns off tracing in the > tracemark() so that we don't lose information about what was going on when we > hit the latency: > > > The current logic of

Re: [PATCH] cyclictest: stop any tracing after hitting a breaktrace threshold

2016-05-03 Thread Luiz Capitulino
On Tue, 3 May 2016 12:59:53 -0500 Clark Williams wrote: > John, > > This patch is against the devel/v0.98 branch. It turns off tracing in the > tracemark() so that we don't lose information about what was going on when we > hit the latency: > > > The current logic of using --tracemark and

[PATCH] cyclictest: stop any tracing after hitting a breaktrace threshold

2016-05-03 Thread Clark Williams
John, This patch is against the devel/v0.98 branch. It turns off tracing in the tracemark() so that we don't lose information about what was going on when we hit the latency: The current logic of using --tracemark and --notrace works for running cyclictest with trace-cmd, but even if we are

[PATCH] cyclictest: stop any tracing after hitting a breaktrace threshold

2016-05-03 Thread Clark Williams
John, This patch is against the devel/v0.98 branch. It turns off tracing in the tracemark() so that we don't lose information about what was going on when we hit the latency: The current logic of using --tracemark and --notrace works for running cyclictest with trace-cmd, but even if we are