[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1257212065.3528.28.camel@falcon.domain.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:34:25 +0800
From: Wu Zhangjin <wuzhangjin@...il.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>,
Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@...glemail.com>,
David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
Adam Nemet <anemet@...iumnetworks.com>,
Patrik Kluba <kpajko79@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 08/11] tracing: not trace mips_timecounter_init()
in MIPS
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 22:43 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
[...]
> > > > -static inline u64 mips_timecounter_read(void)
> > > > +static inline u64 notrace mips_timecounter_read(void)
> > >
> > >
> > > You don't need to set notrace functions, unless their addresses
> > > are referenced somewhere, which unfortunately might happen
> > > for some functions but this is rare.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, Will remove it.
>
>
>
> Oops, a word has escaped from my above sentence. I wanted to say:
>
> "You don't need to set notrace to inline functions" :)
>
>
Thanks ;)
I have got your meaning at that time, and have removed them with inline
functions.
> > > But I would rather see a __mips_notrace on these two core functions.
> >
> > What about this: __arch_notrace? If the arch need this, define it,
> > otherwise, ignore it! if only graph tracer need it, define it in "#ifdef
> > CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER ... #endif".
>
> The problem is that archs may want to disable tracing on different
> places.
> For example mips wants to disable tracing in timecounter_read_delta,
> but another arch may want to disable tracing somewhere else.
>
> We'll then have several unrelated __arch_notrace. One that is relevant
> for mips, another that is relevant for arch_foo, but all of them will
> apply for all arch that have defined a __arch_notrace.
>
> It's true that __mips_notrace is not very elegant as it looks like
> a specific arch annotation intruder.
>
> But at least that gives us a per arch filter granularity.
>
> If only static ftrace could disappear, we could keep only dynamic
> ftrace and we would then be able to filter dynamically.
> But I'm not sure it's a good idea for archs integration.
>
Got it.
Thanks & Regards,
Wu Zhangjin
--
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