[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080822104610.GA3482@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:46:13 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: ftraced and suspend to ram
On Fri 2008-08-22 12:35:39, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 09:23:43AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >
> > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > The code in question is the ftraced() function in
> > > > > > kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, I'll have a look in a while.
> > > >
> > > > Can you try the appended patch, please?
> > >
> > > makes sense - i've applied it to tip/tracing/urgent, see the tidied up
> > > commit below.
> > >
> > > It should be no big issue not being able to trace across suspend+resume
> > > - and that restriction will go away with Steve's build-time based mcount
> > > patching mechanism in v2.6.28.
> >
> > Patch looks okay to me, but I'm not sure if another issue is not
> > hiding under it. Did anyone actually test ftrace + suspend after
> > applying this?
>
> I just tested this patch - it didn't help ;(
Does ftrace hook itself onto _all_ the functions? Or all .c functions?
I guess low-level suspend code needs to be exempt from
tracing. Certainly all the assembly functions.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists