[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100721215836.86F9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:01:34 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Koki Sanagi <sanagi.koki@...fujitsu.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com,
izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
scott.a.mcmillan@...el.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/5] irq: add tracepoint to softirq_raise
> > >> #endif /* _TRACE_IRQ_H */
> > >> diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
> > >> index 825e112..6790599 100644
> > >> --- a/kernel/softirq.c
> > >> +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
> > >> @@ -215,9 +215,9 @@ restart:
> > >> int prev_count = preempt_count();
> > >> kstat_incr_softirqs_this_cpu(h - softirq_vec);
> > >>
> > >> - trace_softirq_entry(h, softirq_vec);
> > >> + trace_softirq_entry(h - softirq_vec);
> > >> h->action(h);
> > >> - trace_softirq_exit(h, softirq_vec);
> > >> + trace_softirq_exit(h - softirq_vec);
> > >
> > > You're loosing information here by reducing the numbers of parameters in this
> > > tracepoint. How many other tracepoint scripts rely on having both pointers
> > > handy? Why not just do the pointer math inside your tracehook instead?
> >
> > In __raise_softirq_irqoff macro there is no method to refer softirq_vec, so it
> > can't use softirq DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS as is.
> > Currently, there is no script using softirq_entry or softirq_exit.
> >
> That shouldn't matter, just pass in NULL for softirq_vec in
> __raise_softirq_irqoff as the second argument to the trace function. You may
> need to fix up the class definition so that the assignment or printk doesn't try
> to dereference that pointer when its NULL, but thats easy enough, and it avoids
> breaking any other perf scripts floating out there.
please see 5 lines above. we already have 'h - softirq_vec' calculation in
this function. so, Sanagi-san's change don't makes any overhead.
So, if the overhead is zero, I'd prefer simplest tracepoint definition :)
--
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