[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090116160202.GA15209@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:02:02 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ftrace: updates to tip
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > But I do notice that not all functions produce a valid stack trace.
> > > Maybe it would be better to add that api :-?
> >
> > yes - i think that API would be more intuitive, and that way people could
> > mix more interesting functions (with stack traces) with less important
> > functions (no stack traces).
>
> Ah, that's the point. We can't mix and match on these. Either all
> functions that are traced do the stack trace, or none do. This is where
> the new api may be confusing. [...]
that would be confusing indeed.
> [...] We can register a function to be traced via the function pointer,
> and we can pick which functions to trace, but we can not separate out
> different functions for different traces.
Why not? We could have a hash of all traced functions with metadata
attached. Since patching functions in/out would be a relatively rare
operation, this would be a highly efficient read-mostly hash.
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