[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49A276E0.9010603@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:13:52 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/markers: make markers select tracepoints
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> KVMTRACE_3D(MSR_READ, &svm->vcpu, ecx, (u32)data,
> (u32)(data >> 32), handler);
>
> after:
>
> kvm_trace("MSR_READ: %p, %08lx, %016Lx\n", &svm->vcpu, ecx, data);
>
> As a result all these traces would become a lot more readable
> (and a lot more flexible) both in the source code, and in the
> trace output stage.
>
> And any ad-hoc tracepoint can be added, without worrying about
> the name of the macro or the number of type of arguments. Note
> that in this specific example we didnt need to split up the u64
> 'data' into two 32-bit values, nor do we have to pass in the
> 'handler' name, nor do we have to provide a MSR_READ
> enumeration.
>
> The tracing-disabled case would still be as fast - a single
> branch check.
>
> Avi, what do you think, any objections against an RFC patchset
> that shows this off?
>
>
Definitely, as long as formatting is performed after the data is
gathered (say, in userspace). kvmtrace can generate around 1M
events/sec/cpu, so we need truly low overhead.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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