[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111117232533.GA14356@Krystal>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:25:34 -0500
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Tracepoint: introduce tracepoint() API
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 15:50 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Introduce:
> >
> > tracepoint(event_name, arg1, arg2, ...)
> >
> > while keeping the old tracepoint API in place, e.g.:
> >
> > trace_event_name(arg1, arg2, ...)
> >
> > This allows skipping parameter side-effects (pointer dereference,
> > function calls, ...) when the tracepoint is not dynamically activated.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/include/linux/tracepoint.h b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> > index d530a44..c9c73f7 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> > @@ -107,6 +107,12 @@ void tracepoint_update_probe_range(struct tracepoint * const *begin,
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS
> >
> > +#define tracepoint(name, args...) \
> > + do { \
> > + if (static_branch(&__tracepoint_##name.key)) \
> > + __trace_##name(args); \
> > + } while (0)
> > +
> > /*
> > * it_func[0] is never NULL because there is at least one element in the array
> > * when the array itself is non NULL.
> > @@ -144,13 +150,17 @@ void tracepoint_update_probe_range(struct tracepoint * const *begin,
> > */
> > #define __DECLARE_TRACE(name, proto, args, cond, data_proto, data_args) \
> > extern struct tracepoint __tracepoint_##name; \
> > + static inline void __trace_##name(proto) \
> > + { \
> > + __DO_TRACE(&__tracepoint_##name, \
> > + TP_PROTO(data_proto), \
> > + TP_ARGS(data_args), \
> > + TP_CONDITION(cond)); \
> > + } \
>
> I wrote a patch earlier today that does almost the exact same thing, but
> I had more in macro part, which I would have cleaned up after the RFC. I
> didn't add another static inline, but I think this approach is a little
> cleaner (with the second static inline).
I'm glad you like it :)
>
> I didn't post mine because I was still analyzing the assembly to make
> sure it did what I expected. But I got side tracked on other things (RT
> related) and didn't quite finish the analysis.
>
> Did you do a compare of kmem_cache_alloc() to see if this fixes the
> reported problem?
I did not test it against this specific reported case, but I had this
exact same kind of issue a while back when moving from Kernel Markers
(which were macros) to the Tracepoint static inlines. Macros were
letting the compiler optimize away the side-effects, which was not
possible with static inlines only.
Eric, does it work better for you with this patch and by using
tracepoint() instead of trace_...() ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> -- Steve
>
> > static inline void trace_##name(proto) \
> > { \
> > if (static_branch(&__tracepoint_##name.key)) \
> > - __DO_TRACE(&__tracepoint_##name, \
> > - TP_PROTO(data_proto), \
> > - TP_ARGS(data_args), \
> > - TP_CONDITION(cond)); \
> > + __trace_##name(args); \
> > } \
> > static inline int \
> > register_trace_##name(void (*probe)(data_proto), void *data) \
> > @@ -193,7 +203,12 @@ void tracepoint_update_probe_range(struct tracepoint * const *begin,
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__tracepoint_##name)
> >
> > #else /* !CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS */
> > +
> > +#define tracepoint(name, args...) __trace_##name(args)
> > +
> > #define __DECLARE_TRACE(name, proto, args, cond, data_proto, data_args) \
> > + static inline void __trace_##name(proto) \
> > + { } \
> > static inline void trace_##name(proto) \
> > { } \
> > static inline int \
> >
>
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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