Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:46:13 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: ftraced and suspend to ram |
| |
On Fri 2008-08-22 12:35:39, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 09:23:43AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The code in question is the ftraced() function in > > > > > > kernel/trace/ftrace.c > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, I'll have a look in a while. > > > > > > > > Can you try the appended patch, please? > > > > > > makes sense - i've applied it to tip/tracing/urgent, see the tidied up > > > commit below. > > > > > > It should be no big issue not being able to trace across suspend+resume > > > - and that restriction will go away with Steve's build-time based mcount > > > patching mechanism in v2.6.28. > > > > Patch looks okay to me, but I'm not sure if another issue is not > > hiding under it. Did anyone actually test ftrace + suspend after > > applying this? > > I just tested this patch - it didn't help ;(
Does ftrace hook itself onto _all_ the functions? Or all .c functions?
I guess low-level suspend code needs to be exempt from tracing. Certainly all the assembly functions. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| |