Re: [PATCH] trace power_frequency events on the correct cpu (for Intel x86 CPUs)

From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
Cc: "Robert Schöne" <robert.schoene@tu-dresden.de>,
	"Dave Jones" <davej@redhat.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	cpufreq <cpufreq@vger.kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace power_frequency events on the correct cpu  (for Intel x86 CPUs)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:58:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BA8F34C.9040401@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201003231757.51259.trenn@suse.de>

On 3/23/2010 9:57, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 March 2010 17:28:36 Robert SchÃ¶ne wrote:
>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2010, 06:57 -0700 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
>>> On 3/22/2010 0:04, Robert SchÃ¶ne wrote:
>>>> Am Sonntag, den 21.03.2010, 17:42 -0700 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
>>>>> On 3/20/2010 14:37, Thomas Renninger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It also seem to be (hopefully) a minor feature for timechart, so this should
>>>>>> not hurt that much (yet).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's actually a major feature for timechart, and one of the key things I and a bunch of others
>>>>> inside Intel use timechart for.
>>>>>
>>>> It's a major feature for us too.
>>>> I suppose, the cpufreq_notify_transition calls are correct (meaning
>>>> being called for all related cpus) for every driver. So there's still
>>>> the option to include it in the POST_CHANGE section of this function.
>>>> Could this be okay for the both of you?
>>>
>>> post change would work... that gets frequency afaik..
>> Are you ok with this too, Thomas?
> You mean hooking it into cpufreq_stat_notifier_trans() in
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c?

no

hooking into the post frequency change callback that gets done..
which is guaranteed to be on the right cpu afaics.