Re: [tracecompass-dev] Thread Priority in KernelStateProvider

[Alexandre Montplaisir <alexmonthy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/17/2015 09:49 AM, christian mansky wrote:
> Hi Alexandre and Matthew,
> thanks for your support. In the meantime I tried to come up with a proper
> implemention in the KernelStateProvider. First tests look promising; however I'd
> like to test it more thoroughly. When those tests are finished, is it OK to
> submit the patches? I suppose the preferred way to do so is via Gerrit as
> described in the "Developer Resources".

Sure, it'd be great if you could submit those patches!

The website should be up to date, including the contents of this wiki page:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Trace_Compass/Contributor_Guidelines

Thanks,
Alexandre

> Regards,
> Chris
>
>
> > > Gesendet: Montag, 16. Februar 2015 um 19:51 Uhr
> > > Von: "Alexandre Montplaisir" <alexmonthy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > An: christian.mansky@xxxxxx
> > > Cc: "tracecompass developer discussions" <tracecompass-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Betreff: Re: [tracecompass-dev] Thread Priority in KernelStateProvider
> > > On 02/14/2015 03:21 PM, christian mansky wrote:
> > > > Hi Alexandre,
> > > > I agree, another column isn't such a bright idea with the aligned axis approach. Actually, my first thought was a dedicated view showing current task properties; however, I was thinking about a custom made view and didn't dare propose it. The properties view didn't come to mind, but I like it. How about adding the current taskname, tid and priority to the properties view?
> > > Yep, this shounds like a good plan. I'm not sure how easy it will be to
> > > match a PropertySource to an arbitrary interval taken in the view, but
> > > I've opened the following bug so that we can look into it:
> > > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=460046
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Alexandre
> > > A tooltip alone would not be sufficient, but it certainly is a nice addition.
> > > Regards Chris
> > >
> > > > Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:29:19 -0500
> > > > From: Alexandre Montplaisir <alexmonthy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: christian.mansky@xxxxxx
> > > > Cc: tracecompass developer discussions <tracecompass-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Subject: Re: [tracecompass-dev] Thread Priority in KernelStateProvider
> > > > Message-ID: <54DE508F.8060108@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
> > > >
> > > > Hi Chris,
> > > >
> > > > In fact we're trying to move away from having columns in views like
> > > > these, so that we can eventually have a kind of "unified time axis", as
> > > > described at [1]. If we want to display extra information for each
> > > > entry, we could do so in a dedicated view, for example the Properties view.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think of adding the priority information to the tooltip,
> > > > when the user mouses-over a state in the Control Flow View? Would it be
> > > > sufficient?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Alexandre
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://wiki.eclipse.org/Trace_Compass/Design_Documents/Aligned_x_axis[https://wiki.eclipse.org/Trace_Compass/Design_Documents/Aligned_x_axis]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 02/13/2015 02:06 PM, christian mansky wrote:
> > > > > Hi Matthew,
> > > > > thanks for the reply. To be honest up until now I have not given the data output much thought, but now that you mention it ... I want a quick overview of the current thread when stepping through a kernel trace. Since the Control Flow View already highlights the current thread, what about a new column "Prio" next to the process name or after the ptid column?
> > > > > Regards Chris
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:47:46 -0500
> > > > > From: Matthew Khouzam <matthew.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: tracecompass developer discussions <tracecompass-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [tracecompass-dev] Thread Priority in KernelStateProvider
> > > > > Message-ID: <54DE1CA2.4040109@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks great as an idea! How do you plan on displaying this? I personally
> > > > > encourage writing patches, they are very welcome. I just want to make
> > > > > sure before you embark on that journey that you already know how to
> > > > > output the data to the user.
> > > > > If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
> > > > > BR
> > > > > Matthew
> > > > > On 15-02-13 04:15 AM, Mansky Christian wrote:
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > I'm new to Trace Compass and I looked into your great tool for some
> > > > > > time now. I'd like to propose a change (or an enhancement) to the
> > > > > > KernelStateProvider
> > > > > > (org.eclipse.tracecompass.analysis.os.linux.core.kernelanalysis). I
> > > > > > miss the current priority of a thread. In case of a sched_switch event
> > > > > > the next_prio field contains the current thread priority. Of course
> > > > > > the sched_pi_setprio event (only applied from a thread on itself) and
> > > > > > a change of priority from the usermode (most likely a syscall, and
> > > > > > again applied on itself) must also be taken into account.
> > > > > > In your opinion, is this a worthy enhancemet? If so, I'll look into it
> > > > > > a bit deeper trying to provide a patch?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks in advance and best regards,
> > > > > > Chris