[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100211185744.GD4915@nowhere>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:57:48 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] tracing: Introduce TRACE_EVENT_INJECT
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 09:05:06AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 11:04 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > > We can add a register_event_injector later. For now, why not just add
> > > the TRACE_EVENT() and then hook to it in perf using the normal
> > > tracepoint mechanism.
> > >
> > > You could add some macro around the trace_init_lock_class() call that
> > > would facilitate finding all the locks you need. This would probably be
> > > a bit more straight forward than to overload TRACE_EVENT() again.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by that.
>
> Looking back at where trace_lock_class_init() was placed, you don't need
> a wrapper. But instead, why not just have perf hook directly into the
> trace_lock_class_init trace point, and do its injection directly.
> Instead of needing to add some hack to TRACE_EVENT()?
We could. But we expect further events may need such catch-up by
injection system. And ftrace will also need to perform this injection.
That's why I think something more generic would be more reasonable.
--
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