Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:13:46 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tracing: branch tracer, tweak output |
| |
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> a small detail: > > > For example: > > > > bash-3471 [003] 357.014755: [INCORRECT] sched_info_dequeued:sched_stats.h:177 > > bash-3471 [003] 357.014756: [correct] update_curr:sched_fair.c:489 > > bash-3471 [003] 357.014758: [correct] calc_delta_fair:sched_fair.c:411 > > bash-3471 [003] 357.014759: [correct] account_group_exec_runtime:sched_stats.h:356 > > bash-3471 [003] 357.014761: [correct] update_curr:sched_fair.c:489 > > bash-3471 [003] 357.014763: [INCORRECT] calc_delta_fair:sched_fair.c:411 > > bash-3471 [003] 357.014765: [correct] calc_delta_mine:sched.c:1279 > > it's always good to have such fields aligned vertically. Something > like this would be shorter and visually much easier to parse: > > bash-3471 [003] 357.014755: [ MISS ] sched_info_dequeued:sched_stats.h:177 > bash-3471 [003] 357.014756: [ .... ] update_curr:sched_fair.c:489 > bash-3471 [003] 357.014758: [ .... ] calc_delta_fair:sched_fair.c:411 > > any objections against the patch below which implements this?
and note that this is really a "branch tracer/profiler", with branch taken/untaken prediction hits/misses. The likely()/unlikely() is an in-kernel tool to manually predict branch likelyhood - and for now we trace and profile those points that we tweaked manually - but there's no reason why that should be true for future versions too.
So i think it's generally better to think of these events as hit/miss events.
Ingo
| |