From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754550AbcGFOOS (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:14:18 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0117.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.117]:42548 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753878AbcGFOOR (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:14:17 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,rostedt@goodmis.org,:::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3351:3622:3865:3866:3867:3871:3872:3873:3874:4321:5007:6120:6261:7875:10004:10400:10848:10967:11026:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12663:12740:13069:13311:13357:13439:14181:14659:14721:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:2,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: time71_420f46d081e23 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1778 Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:14:12 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Julien Desfossez Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , daolivei@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tracing: add sched_prio_update Message-ID: <20160706101412.2079a243@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20160706135324.GA8583@sinkpad.internal.efficios.com> References: <1467661564-7516-1-git-send-email-jdesfossez@efficios.com> <20160705111914.238b28ee@gandalf.local.home> <355420018.58738.1467755434744.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20160706091325.3f9879eb@gandalf.local.home> <20160706135324.GA8583@sinkpad.internal.efficios.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:53:24 -0400 Julien Desfossez wrote: > > I'm not convinced this should be needed. I hate adding back to back > > tracepoints. > > Indeed, having two tracepoints back to back is not pretty. We placed it > here to get the priority of the newly created threads. Maybe a more > appropriate way of doing that would be to extend the sched_process_fork > tracepoint to output the same scheduling informations. Would you prefer > that option ? That may be a possibility. Let's see what Peter thinks. -- Steve