On 17 January 2011 10:21, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 07:49:58AM -0600, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> I was just wondering which tracepoints format between my 1st proposal >> and yours was the easier to post process by an application like >> pytimechart. > > No idea as pytimechart uses his own ad hoc event parsing. Either > way there won't be much differences though. > >> I have updated the cpu hotplug tracepoint according to your remarks >> and steve's ones. I have just replaced the second >> cpu_arch_die_start/end in your proposal by cpu_arch_dead_start/endfrq > > Tracepoints tend to describe actions rather than states, although I can > show you some exceptions as well. But this tends to be the major > tendency. I suggest you to be stay consistent with this scheme. > For the cpu_die function which is called in the idle loop, we use cpu_hotplug_arch_die_start/end and for the __cpu_die function which waits for the cpu death, we could use cpu_hotplug_arch_wait_death_start/end ? as a summary we have : cpu_hotplug_up_start/end cpu_hotplug_down_start/end cpu_hotplug_arch_up_start/end cpu_hotplug_arch_disable_start/end cpu_hotplug_arch_die_start/end cpu_hotplug_arch_wait_death_start/end > Thanks. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
