On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 27 February 2011 17:31, Pierre Tardy <tar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Vincent Guittot
>> <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> 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

_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev

Reply via email to