On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 27 February 2011 17:31, Pierre Tardy <tardyp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Vincent Guittot >> <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have started to use the new cpuidle tracepoint and created a plugin >>> for pytimechart. >>> I'm not sure if it's the right way to add this cpuidle trace format >>> update but it's the less intrusive one. >> >> Yes, it is okay. I actually plan to also put the whole cpuidle trace >> handling into such plugin. >> Would you care to send me one of your trace file, so that I can >> actually test it. > > Yes, I have attached the trace file which is Vishwa's one in fact. Thanks, I applied and pushed the patch. Please note that your trace has some suspicious tracepoints with same timestamps for end of cpuidle and start of next cpuidle. <idle>-0 [000] 270.645935: cpu_idle: state=2 cpu_id=0 <idle>-0 [000] 271.020935: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=0 <idle>-0 [000] 271.020935: cpu_idle: state=2 cpu_id=0 <idle>-0 [000] 271.036560: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=0 <idle>-0 [000] 271.073395: cpu_idle: state=1 cpu_id=0 Also, cpuidle states name in pytimechart are very selfishly hardcoded with intel's convention. Can you tell what is your convention, so that we can think of a best way to handle display of state's name for ftrace text output? Regards, Pierre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-trace-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|