[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100222181705.GF5055@nowhere>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:17:08 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
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 Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:57:43AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:43 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> So you mean to register a different type of function to the graph tracer
> if trace_thresh is enabled? That does sound like a better idea.
Yeah, this is going to optimize both types of tracing. And I would
also like to prevent from adding new checks in the common graph
tracing if possible. User's cpus and cachelines deserve better :)
--
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