lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] include: trace: Add SCMI header with trace events
From
Date
Hello Jim,

On 12/16/19 10:15 PM, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
>
> +
> +TRACE_EVENT(scmi_xfer_begin,
> + TP_PROTO(u8 id, u8 protocol_id, u16 seq, bool poll),
> + TP_ARGS(id, protocol_id, seq, poll),
> +
> + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> + __field(u8, id)
> + __field(u8, protocol_id)
> + __field(u16, seq)
> + __field(bool, poll)
> + ),
> +
> + TP_fast_assign(
> + __entry->id = id;
> + __entry->protocol_id = protocol_id;
> + __entry->seq = seq;
> + __entry->poll = poll;
> + ),
> +
> + TP_printk("id=%u protocol_id=%u seq=%u poll=%u", __entry->id,
> + __entry->protocol_id, __entry->seq, __entry->poll)
> +);
> +
> +TRACE_EVENT(scmi_xfer_end,
> + TP_PROTO(u8 id, u8 protocol_id, u16 seq, u32 status),
> + TP_ARGS(id, protocol_id, seq, status),
> +
> + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> + __field(u8, id)
> + __field(u8, protocol_id)
> + __field(u16, seq)
> + __field(u32, status)
> + ),
> +
> + TP_fast_assign(
> + __entry->id = id;
> + __entry->protocol_id = protocol_id;
> + __entry->seq = seq;
> + __entry->status = status;
> + ),
> +
> + TP_printk("id=%u protocol_id=%u seq=%u status=%u", __entry->id,
> + __entry->protocol_id, __entry->seq, __entry->status)
> +);
>
> Hello,
>
> When there are multiple messages in the mbox queue, I've found it
> a chore matching up the 'begin' event with the 'end' event for each
> SCMI msg. The id (command) may not be unique, the proto_id may not be
> unique, and the seq may not be unique. The combination of the three
> may not be unique. Would it make sense to assign a monotonically
> increasing ID to each msg so that one can easily match the two events
> for each msg? This id could be the result of an atomic increment and
> could be stored in the xfer structure. Of course, it would be one of
> the values printed out in the events.

Hmmm, an atomic variable in this code might be too heavy, especially in
case of fast_switch from cpufreq. Let me think about it and experiment.

>
> Also, would you consider a third event, right after the
> scmi_fetch_response() invocation in scmi_rx_callback()? I've found
> this to be insightful in situations where we were debugging a timeout.

Yes, of course. It would be really useful. Thank you for the
suggestion.

>
> I'm fine if you elect not to do the above; I just wanted to post
> this for your consideration.

Thant's a valuable feedback. I will definitely consider it.

Regards,
Lukasz

>
> Thanks,
> Jim Quinlan
> Broadcom
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-17 11:06    [W:0.059 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site