[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0809230651070.26011@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:53:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
darren@...art.com, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
systemtap-ml <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Unified tracing buffer
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > But, with that, with a global atomic counter, and the following trace:
> >
> > cpu 0: trace_point_a
> > cpu 1: trace_point_c
> > cpu 0: trace_point_b
> > cpu 1: trace_point_d
> >
> >
> > Could the event a really come after event d, even though we already hit
> > event b?
>
> yes, if event c is an interrupt event :-).
>
> cpu 0 cpu 1
> hit event d
> hit event a
> log event a
> irq event c
> log event c
heh, This is assuming that event c is in an IRQ handler.
Since I control where event c is, I can prevent that. I'm talking about
the CPU doing something funny that would have c come after d.
But I didn't specify exactly what the events were, so I'll accept that
explanation ;-)
-- Steve
> hit event b
> log event b
> log event d
>
> so, I think if we really need to order events, we have to stop
> irq right after hitting an event.
>
> Anyway, in most case, I think it works, but as accurate as
> synchronized-TSC if hardware supports it.
--
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