[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090116111243.GA20082@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:12:43 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] ftrace: move function tracer functions out of
trace.c
* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:53:43 -0500 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > static void
> > +function_trace_call_preempt_only(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip)
> > +{
> > + struct trace_array *tr = func_trace;
> > + struct trace_array_cpu *data;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + long disabled;
> > + int cpu, resched;
> > + int pc;
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(!ftrace_function_enabled))
> > + return;
>
> We're optimizing for the tracing-is-enabled case. What's the thinking
> here?
There's two levels here: first the patched in callsites. Those are NOPs in
the usual case - there's no overhead for the default 'function tracing is
built in but not enabled' case.
There's a second level: a /debug/tracing/tracing_enabled lightweight
dynamic flag to flip tracing on/off while the tracer is enabled. _That_
one, if it ever matters to a codepath, is default-enabled.
I.e. the above code sequence is correct.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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