linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] new irq tracer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090227123037.152E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:33:34 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	acme@...stprotocols.net, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] new irq tracer

> > the lttng tracepoints wrap the calls to _handle_IRQ_event in 3
> > different places. So the above suggested irq tracepoint provides the
> > same information with 4 less tracepoints in the code. So I believe its
> > simpler - plus we can understand which action handlers are handling the
> > interrupt.
> > 
> 
> 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.

I agree with IRQ latency tracing is very important.
So now, We understand we have another two good requirement.

Therefore, I can agree to Mathieu's separete trace point idea and
Jason's current patch.

Thanks! good discussion.



> 
> But I agree that knowing which handler is called is important.
> 
> How about this compromise :
> 
> trace_irq_entry(irq, action)
>   _handle_IRQ_event()
>     for each action  {
>       trace_irq_handler(action, ret);
>       ret = action->handler(irq, action->dev_id);
>       ...
>     }
> trace_irq_exit(action_ret);
> 
> Would that give you the information you need ?
> 
> Here trace_irq_handler would be passed the _current_ action invoked and
> the _previous_ action return value. Note that we should initialize
> irqreturn_t ret to some initial value if we do this. That should keep
> the tracing overhead minimal.





--
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/