[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090424064400.GB9502@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:44:00 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add function graph tracer support for ARM
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 02:49:56PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
> >> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ISA_DMA) += dma-isa.o
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += bios32.o isa.o
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += smp.o
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE) += ftrace.o
> >> +obj-$(CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER) += ftrace.o
> > I there a reason that CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE and
> > CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER share the same source file?
> ftrace.c has stuff from both, so you want it "turned on"
> if one or the other (or both) are configed on.
I got this ...
>
> I'll look at whether it makes sense to split these two into
> separate files. This issue may be resolved by the code
> movement that Frederic Weisbecker mentioned in his e-mail.
... and this was my intention.
> >> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S
> >> @@ -135,8 +135,16 @@ ENTRY(mcount)
> >> adr r0, ftrace_stub
> >> cmp r0, r2
> >> bne trace
> >> +
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> >> + ldr r1, =ftrace_graph_return
> >> + ldr r2, [r1]
> >> + cmp r0, r2 @ if *ftrace_graph_return != ftrace_stub
> >> + bne ftrace_graph_caller
> >> +#endif /* CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER */
> >> +
> >> ldr lr, [fp, #-4] @ restore lr
> >> - ldmia sp!, {r0-r3, pc}
> >> + ldmia sp!, {r0-r3, pc} @ return doing nothing
> > If ftrace_trace_function != ftrace_stub then ftrace_graph_caller isn't
> > called. Is this correct?
> My comment is possibly misleading here. The sense of the
> '!=' includes the 'n' portion of the 'bne' on the following line.
> So the logic is:
> if *ftrace_graph_return != ftrace stub, branch to ftrace_graph_caller
> or in other words
> if *ftrace_graph_return == ftrace_stub, return doing nothing
>
> Maybe I should just remove the comment and let the code
> speak for itself? (or maybe move the comment down one line?)
Yes, the comments are as good as the comments for ftrace_trace_function.
What I meant is that with your code using both ftrace_trace_function and
ftrace_graph_caller doesn't work, because if ftrace_trace_function !=
ftrace_stub then the check for ftrace_trace_function is simply skipped.
And I just noticed something else: There is a 2nd implementation of
mcount in arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S for CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
(which is currently not selectable for ARM). Maybe add a note to this
mcount that it needs fixing for graph tracing when it is revived?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
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