[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A1CED66.7030805@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:36:06 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: mingo@...e.hu, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ftrace: add tracepoint for timer
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2009, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
>> This patch is modify from Mathieu's patch base on ingo's suggestion, the original patch
>> can be found here:
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123791201816247&w=2
>
> I have a hard time to connect this patch to the original one.
>
There are some timer hook in Mathieu's patch, I just modify the tracepoint name and
add the tracepoint in other suitable place.
>> +TRACE_EVENT(timer_start,
>> +
>> + TP_PROTO(struct timer_list *timer, int cpu),
>> +
>> + TP_ARGS(timer, cpu),
>> +
>> + TP_STRUCT__entry(
>> + __field( void *, timer )
>> + __field( void *, function )
>> + __field( unsigned long, expires )
>> + __field( int, cpu )
>> + ),
>> +
>> + TP_fast_assign(
>> + __entry->timer = timer;
>> + __entry->function = timer->function;
>> + __entry->expires = timer->expires;
>> + __entry->cpu = cpu;
>> + ),
>> +
>> + TP_printk("timer=%p func=%pf expires=%lu cpu=%d", __entry->timer,
>> + __entry->function, __entry->expires, __entry->cpu)
>> +);
>
> How do we connect the trace to the jiffies value when the timer
> was started ?
>
ftrace already have time information in trace event's output, we can use it instead
>> +
>> +TRACE_EVENT(timer_expire,
>> +
>> + TP_PROTO(struct timer_list *timer),
>> +
>> + TP_ARGS(timer),
>> +
>> + TP_STRUCT__entry(
>> + __field( void *, timer )
>> + __field( void *, function )
>> + ),
>> +
>> + TP_fast_assign(
>> + __entry->timer = timer;
>> + __entry->function = timer->function;
>> + ),
>> +
>> + TP_printk("timer=%p func=%pf", __entry->timer, __entry->function)
>> +);
>
> Ditto.
>
Yes, you are right, I'll remove __entry->function in v2 patch
>> +TRACE_EVENT(timer_cancel,
>> +
>> + TP_PROTO(struct timer_list *timer),
>> +
>> + TP_ARGS(timer),
>> +
>> + TP_STRUCT__entry(
>> + __field( void *, timer )
>> + __field( void *, function )
>> + ),
>> +
>> + TP_fast_assign(
>> + __entry->timer = timer;
>> + __entry->function = timer->function;
>> + ),
>> +
>> + TP_printk("timer=%p func=%pf", __entry->timer, __entry->function)
>> +);
>
> Same here.
>
>> @@ -547,6 +550,7 @@ void init_timer_key(struct timer_list *timer,
>> {
>> debug_timer_init(timer);
>> __init_timer(timer, name, key);
>> + trace_timer_init(timer);
>
> Can we please avoid to have two debug calls in one 2 line function ?
>
debug_timer_init() must call before object's init, but tracepoint have to call
after object's init beacuse if we move the tracepoint to before object init, the
object has no data yet.
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(init_timer_key);
>>
>> @@ -565,6 +569,7 @@ static inline void detach_timer(struct timer_list *timer,
>> struct list_head *entry = &timer->entry;
>>
>> debug_timer_deactivate(timer);
>> + trace_timer_cancel(timer);
>
> Ditto. Please create one debug entity which covers both.
>
IMHO, we can't create one entity for init event, so we do better detach other event.
for example:
in init event:
void init_timer_key(...)
{
debug_timer_init(timer);
__init_timer(timer, name, key);
trace_timer_init(timer);
}
but in detach event ():
void detach_timer(...)
{
......
trace_timer_deactivate()
}
void trace_timer_deactivate()
{
debug_timer_deactivate(timer);
trace_timer_cancel(timer);
}
it's disunity for us.
Thanks,
Xiao Guangrong
> ....
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
>
--
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