On 25 March 2016 at 22:07, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/25/2016 01:32 AM, Baolin Wang wrote: >> >> On 24 March 2016 at 22:08, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 03/24/2016 05:54 AM, Baolin Wang wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> This patch provides some tracepoints for the lifecycle of a request from >>>> fetching to completion to help with performance analysis of MMC >>>> subsystem. >>> >>> >>> >>> Most of these already exist as block layer trace points, why do we need >>> mmc >>> specific ones? >> >> >> Currently the MMC core does not have any tracepoints for use with >> ftrace. These are very useful as they provide a very low overhead >> runtime controllable way of getting diagnostics from the system which >> is capable of recording a great deal of information without impacting >> system performance. We have tracepoints in the block layer so we can >> do some trace of MMC but none in MMC itself so adding some where >> appropriate would help people follow the activity of subsystem. > > > But more than half of the trace points you added, those are DIRECTLY related > to the block event. So what you are saying makes little sense. I see you > resend it with the same trace points, I'll comment on that mail. OK. I'll address your comments on that new mail. Thanks. > > -- > Jens Axboe > -- Baolin.wang Best Regards -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
