lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 4/5] devfreq_cooling: add trace information
Hi Steve,

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 06:19:28PM +0100, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:09:31 +0100
> Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> wrote:
>
> > Tracing is useful for debugging and performance tuning. Add similar
> > traces to what's present in the cpu cooling device.
> >
> > Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
> > Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c | 6 +++++
> > include/trace/events/thermal.h | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c
> > index a032c5d5c374..a27206815066 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c
> > @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@
> > #include <linux/pm_opp.h>
> > #include <linux/thermal.h>
> >
> > +#include <trace/events/thermal.h>
> > +
> > static DEFINE_MUTEX(devfreq_lock);
> > static DEFINE_IDR(devfreq_idr);
> >
> > @@ -293,6 +295,9 @@ static int devfreq_cooling_get_requested_power(struct thermal_cooling_device *cd
> > /* Get static power */
> > static_power = get_static_power(dfc, freq);
> >
> > + trace_thermal_power_devfreq_get_power(cdev, status, freq, dyn_power,
> > + static_power);
> > +
> > *power = dyn_power + static_power;
> >
> > return 0;
> > @@ -348,6 +353,7 @@ static int devfreq_cooling_power2state(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
> > break;
> >
> > *state = i;
> > + trace_thermal_power_devfreq_limit(cdev, freq, *state, power);
>
> I'm curious, does changing the above to:
>
> trace_thermal_power_devfreq_limit(cdev, freq, i, power);
>
> make the compiled code better?
>
> A tracepoint does some whacky things, and gcc may not optimize this.

I've compared the generated assembly on arm, arm64 and x86_64 and both
options generate exactly the same code.

Cheers,
Javi


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-18 16:21    [W:0.555 / U:0.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site