[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c62985530812041504h19517a43x6edde139afd0f54e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 00:04:42 +0100
From: "Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tracing/ftrace: don't insert TRACE_PRINT during selftests
2008/12/5 Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>:
> 2008/12/4 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>:
>> The comment style should be:
>>
>> /*
>> * comment
>> * comment
>> * comment
>> */
>
> Sorry, will fix it.
>
>>
>>> +static atomic_t tracing_selftest_running = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>>
>> Do we need that is atomic? Also, it needs to be __read_mostly.
>
>
> I thought it should be atomic to be sure the value is synchronized
> on smp when read. But actually that should have been more likely an
> int with smp_wb after writing it.
>
>>> +
>>> /* For tracers that don't implement custom flags */
>>> static struct tracer_opt dummy_tracer_opt[] = {
>>> { }
>>> @@ -589,6 +597,8 @@ int register_tracer(struct tracer *type)
>>> struct tracer *saved_tracer = current_trace;
>>> struct trace_array *tr = &global_trace;
>>> int i;
>>> +
>>> + atomic_set(&tracing_selftest_running, 1);
>>
>> Enable this in the mutex lock, and we could make it a normal int.
>>
>
>
> But ftrace_printk can be called from interrupt context. I think we can loose
> some TRACE_PRINT entries at the selftests time since the tracer are not enabled
> by the user at this time, except the boot tracer...
>
But with the boot tracer enabled, there is no selftest actually :-)
--
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