From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757997AbZCXRyT (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:54:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754782AbZCXRyE (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:54:04 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:36534 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754798AbZCXRyB (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:54:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:53:17 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ltt-dev@lists.casi.polymtl.ca, Frederic Weisbecker , Jason Baron , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [patch 5/9] LTTng instrumentation scheduler fix task migration Message-ID: <20090324175317.GD31117@elte.hu> References: <20090324155625.420966314@polymtl.ca> <20090324160148.554127249@polymtl.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090324160148.554127249@polymtl.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > The scheduler migration only needs to pass the task struct pointer > and the destination CPU. The source CPU can be found by using > task_cpu(p) in the probe. > +++ linux-2.6-lttng/include/trace/sched.h 2009-01-30 10:43:19.000000000 -0500 > @@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ DECLARE_TRACE(sched_switch, > TPARGS(rq, prev, next)); > > DECLARE_TRACE(sched_migrate_task, > - TPPROTO(struct task_struct *p, int orig_cpu, int dest_cpu), > - TPARGS(p, orig_cpu, dest_cpu)); > + TPPROTO(struct task_struct *p, int dest_cpu), > + TPARGS(p, dest_cpu)); Makes sense. Since this tracepoint has been changed in the tracing tree already, mind doing this change in that context? Thanks, Ingo