[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0902251721170.12697@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:21:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, acme@...stprotocols.net,
fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] new irq tracer
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > The main thing I dislike about only tracing action->handler() calls is
> > > that you are not tracing an IRQ per se, but rather the invocation of a
> > > given handler within the interrupt. For instance, it would be difficult
> > > to calculate the maximum interrupt latency for a given interrupt line,
> > > because you don't have the "real" irq entry/exit events, just the
> > > individual handler() calls.
> >
> > Then use the function_graph tracer.
> >
>
> Sadly, the function tracer cannot be enabled on production systems.
> Therefore it's not a usable solution in the context where I need this.
And why not? It has zero overhead when disabled.
-- Steve
--
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