[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1311855462.2617.171.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:17:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
David Sharp <dhsharp@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] trace: Add tracepoints to call function
interrupt handlers
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 11:57 -0700, Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> @@ -172,6 +173,7 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_interrupt(void)
> struct call_function_data *data;
> int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>
> + trace_call_function_ipi_entry(0);
> /*
> * Shouldn't receive this interrupt on a cpu that is not yet online.
> */
> @@ -239,7 +241,7 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_interrupt(void)
>
> csd_unlock(&data->csd);
> }
> -
> + trace_call_function_ipi_exit(0);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -252,6 +254,7 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
> unsigned int data_flags;
> LIST_HEAD(list);
>
> + trace_call_function_single_ipi_entry(0);
> /*
> * Shouldn't receive this interrupt on a cpu that is not yet online.
> */
> @@ -282,6 +285,7 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
> if (data_flags & CSD_FLAG_LOCK)
> csd_unlock(data);
> }
> + trace_call_function_single_ipi_exit(0);
> }
The problem with this is that some archs only have a single IPI and
multiplex all IPIs on top, in that case you're either nesting interrupt
tracepoints or missing a part.
I really think you're doing this at the wrong level.
--
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