linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] tracing: Add trace

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:30:26 +0200
From:   Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
To:     Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>,
        "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masami <masami.hiramatsu@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] tracing: Add trace_irqsoff tracepoints

Hi Binoy,

On 08/30/2016 12:28 PM, Binoy Jayan wrote:
> +static inline void trace_latency_preempt_mark_ts(enum latency_type ltype)
> +{
> +	this_cpu_write(lat_ts[ltype], (cycle_t) trace_clock_local());
> +}
> +
> +static inline void latency_trace(enum latency_type type)
> +{
> +	trace_latency_preempt(type,
> +		(cycle_t) trace_clock_local() - this_cpu_read(lat_ts[type]));
> +}

As Masami has pointed out, the prefix trace_ should not be used. Also 
having trace_latency_ and latency_trace_ is kind of confusing. What 
about {start|stop}_latency_timing()? It would match the existing 
{start|stop}_critical_timing(). Or is it too close and it leads to 
confusion?

Another idea is {start|stop}_latency_preempt(). This matches the 
trace_latency_preempt_enable() function.

cheers,
daniel