On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
TRACE_EVENT(itimer_state,
- TP_PROTO(int which, const struct itimerval *const value,
- TP_PROTO(int which, const struct itimerspec64 *const value, unsigned long long expires),
TP_ARGS(which, value, expires), @@ -321,12 +321,12 @@ TRACE_EVENT(itimer_state, __entry->which = which; __entry->expires = expires; __entry->value_sec = value->it_value.tv_sec;
__entry->value_usec = value->it_value.tv_usec;
__entry->value_usec = value->it_value.tv_nsec / NSEC_PER_USEC;
__entry->interval_usec = value->it_interval.tv_usec;
__entry->interval_usec = value->it_interval.tv_nsec / NSEC_PER_USEC;
Hmm, having a division in a tracepoint is clearly suboptimal.
),
- TP_printk("which=%d expires=%llu it_value=%ld.%ld it_interval=%ld.%ld",
- TP_printk("which=%d expires=%llu it_value=%ld.%06ld it_interval=%ld.%06ld",
We print only 6 digits after the . so that would be even correct w/o a division. But it probably does not matter much.
@@ -197,19 +207,13 @@ static void set_cpu_itimer(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int clock_id, #define timeval_valid(t) \ (((t)->tv_sec >= 0) && (((unsigned long) (t)->tv_usec) < USEC_PER_SEC))
Hrm, why do we have yet another incarnation of timeval_valid()? Can we please have only one (the inline version)?
Thanks,
tglx