[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171004160151.noficzcd4ef5ydml@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 18:01:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] tracing: Add support for preempt and irq
enable/disable events
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:22:45PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c b/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c
> index 0e3033c00474..515ac851841a 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c
> @@ -16,6 +16,9 @@
>
> #include "trace.h"
>
> +#define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> +#include <trace/events/preemptirq.h>
> +
> #if defined(CONFIG_IRQSOFF_TRACER) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_TRACER)
> static struct trace_array *irqsoff_trace __read_mostly;
> static int tracer_enabled __read_mostly;
> @@ -776,27 +779,60 @@ static inline void tracer_preempt_on(unsigned long a0, unsigned long a1) { }
> static inline void tracer_preempt_off(unsigned long a0, unsigned long a1) { }
> #endif
>
> +/*
> + * trace_hardirqs_off can be called even when IRQs are already off.
In fact it must be.. otherwise you'll get a complaint.
> It is
> + * pointless and inconsistent with trace_preempt_enable and
> + * trace_preempt_disable to trace this, lets prevent double counting it with a
> + * per-cpu variable. Also reuse the per-cpu variable for other trace_hardirqs_*
> + * functions since we already define it.
Lockdep ignores redundant calls. But I'm not entirely sure what the
above is trying to say.
> + */
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, tracing_irq_cpu);
> +
> #if defined(CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS) && !defined(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)
> void trace_hardirqs_on(void)
> {
> + if (!this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu))
> + return;
> +
> + trace_irq_enable_rcuidle(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
> tracer_hardirqs_on();
> +
> + this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 0);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_on);
>
> void trace_hardirqs_off(void)
> {
> + if (this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu))
> + return;
> +
> + this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 1);
> +
> + trace_irq_disable_rcuidle(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
> tracer_hardirqs_off();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_off);
>
> __visible void trace_hardirqs_on_caller(unsigned long caller_addr)
> {
> + if (!this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu))
> + return;
> +
> + trace_irq_enable_rcuidle(CALLER_ADDR0, caller_addr);
> tracer_hardirqs_on_caller(caller_addr);
> +
> + this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 0);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_on_caller);
>
> __visible void trace_hardirqs_off_caller(unsigned long caller_addr)
> {
> + if (this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu))
> + return;
> +
> + this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 1);
> +
> + trace_irq_disable_rcuidle(CALLER_ADDR0, caller_addr);
> tracer_hardirqs_off_caller(caller_addr);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_off_caller);
lockdep implements the trace_hardirq_*() in terms of *_caller(). Would
that make sense here?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists