[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A094677.5090900@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 17:50:47 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, fweisbec@...il.com, zhaolei@...fujitsu.com,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ftrace: add a tracepoint for __raise_softirq_irqoff()
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 11 May 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>
>>> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 May 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>>> Yes, we should try to fix TRACE_EVENT, but we should fix it _before_ we
>>>>> start using it widely. Circular header dependencies is a real problem
>>>>> with TRACE_EVENT right now.
> Yes, but this would solve most of the include dependency problems at
> once. We would only have dependency on preempt.h left, which alone is
> easier to deal with. And if headers don't need to include any annoying
> headers, they don't need to use the ifdef BUILDING_EVENTS. But my point
> is that when it's needed (and we already see two cases where it's
> needed, with pvops instrumentation and softirq instrumentation, and I
> guess we'll see much more), it's good to have this infrastructure in
> place, so people don't end up trying to do hacks to the kernel code
> changing inlines for function calls to try to deal with the circular
> include issue.
>
> I think it's
>
> a) needed
> b) it does not hurt anyone who does not need it.
>
> So I would definitely recommend adding such define.
>
Sorry for my poor English.
Problem is not only in TP_printk, but also in TP_PROTO if we add a
tracer in header file.
So, it can't be solved only by "get rid of including ftrace parts"
Take v2 patch for example:
(it is at: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124081169727739&w=2)
In order to trace __raise_softirq_irqoff(), we should add
a trace function in __raise_softirq_irqoff() and include
<include/trace/irq.h> in interrupte.h.
If we put <include/trace/irq.h> on top of linux/irq.h,
we will see a warning of "struct softirq_action declared
inside parameter list" in compile. It is because struct irqaction's
definition is bypasswd before TP_PROTO.
To say it simple:
sched.c:
include interrupte.h
|
|-->include irq.h
| |-->include interrupte.h (bypassed)
| |-->TP_PROTO(int irq, struct irqaction *action),
| (but struct softirq_action is not declared before,
| it raise a compile warning:struct softirq_action declared
| inside parameter list.
|-> ......
I can't see the solvent for this in your discuss or I understand wrong?
Xiao
> Mathieu
>
>> -- Steve
>>
>>> I think it should work, but it looks a bit too simple, so I may have
>>> missed something... ?
>>>
>>> Mathieu
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mathieu Desnoyers
>>> OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
>>>
>
--
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