[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090325084724.GA28171@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:47:24 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ltt-dev@...ts.casi.polymtl.ca,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Hideo AOKI <haoki@...hat.com>,
Takashi Nishiie <t-nishiie@...css.fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/9] LTTng instrumentation - irq
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
>
> > If we want to do this logically, without thinking about tracer
> > performance impact, we could/should do :
> >
> > trace_irq_entry(irqno, pt_regs)
> > for_each_handler() {
> > trace_irq_handler_entry(action)
> > action->handler()
> > trace_irq_handler_exit(ret)
> > }
> > trace_irq_exit(retval)
>
> Not really.
Put differently: we seem to agree on handler invocation entry/exit
events (and those are handled by Jason's patch already), and that's
good.
I dont think we need two events for physical IRQ events though. One
is enough: entry event. What meaning does 'retval' have in your
pseudo-code above? None typically.
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