[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200808222252.12547.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:52:11 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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 Friday, 22 of August 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > Does ftrace hook itself onto _all_ the functions? Or all .c functions?
>
> It hooks into all .c functions that are not annotated with "notrace"
> or the files have not been marked in the Makefile like:
>
> CFLAGS_REMOVE_<file>.o = -pg
>
>
> >
> > I guess low-level suspend code needs to be exempt from
> > tracing. Certainly all the assembly functions.
>
> I'm looking into that now too. Are the functions in arch/x86/power/cpu*.c
> the suspend to ram code?
They contain code executed during suspend to RAM, but such code is also:
- in all files under arch/x86/kernel/acpi/
- in main.c, console.c under kernel/power
- in all files under drivers/acpi/sleep
- in drivers/acpi/hardware/hwsleep.c
Generally, ACPI is heavily involved and I'm not the right person to ask which
of the ACPI functions should get the 'notrace' thing. Also, I'm not sure about
the device drivers' ->suspend() and ->resume() callbacks, especially for
sysdevs and ->suspend_late(), ->resume_early() for platform devices and PCI.
Well, how exactly suspend to RAM is broken by ftrace?
Rafael
--
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