[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200925111415.60f5334c@oasis.local.home>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:14:15 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracepoints: Add helper to test if tracepoint is
enabled in a header
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> With the current dependencies of tracepoint.h, I would argue that we should
> only do the trampoline work-around for cases where there is an unavoidable
> circular dependency, like the case of msr.h. For other headers which don't
> have circular dependency issues with tracepoint.h, we should use the usual
> tracepoint instrumentation because not having the trampoline provides better
> tracing (on) speed and reduces (slightly) code size.
Well, for now, I'm going to add the helper function and have the header
use cases use that.
A while back ago I had patches that moves the DO_TRACE() work into a
separate function and with that we probably could have let all
tracepoints be in headers (as they would all just do a function call to
the trace algorithm that does the rest of the work). But you balked at
that because of the added overhead with tracing on.
Anyway, I don't see any issues with the current patch set as is
(besides the documentation fix, which I already updated locally). And
will add this to my queue for linux-next.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists