[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100220144302.GB5354@nowhere>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:43:04 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ftrace - add support for tracing_thresh to
function_graph tracer
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:52:47PM -0800, Tim Bird wrote:
> int trace_graph_entry(struct ftrace_graph_ent *trace)
> {
> struct trace_array *tr = graph_array;
> @@ -221,6 +226,10 @@ int trace_graph_entry(struct ftrace_graph_ent *trace)
> if (!ftrace_graph_addr(trace->func))
> return 0;
>
> + /* if tracing duration, only save function exits (omit function entries in log) */
> + if (tracing_thresh)
> + return 1;
> +
Instead of having yet another check here, may be should we
have a dedicated stub trace_graph_entry?
> @@ -254,6 +263,10 @@ static void __trace_graph_return(struct trace_array *tr,
> if (unlikely(__this_cpu_read(per_cpu_var(ftrace_cpu_disabled))))
> return;
>
> + if (tracing_thresh &&
> + (trace->rettime - trace->calltime < tracing_thresh))
> + return;
> +
And perhaps we can do the same for the return handler?
We could have a trace_graph_return_threshold that
performs the above check and then relies on trace_graph_return.
Thanks.
--
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