lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] ftrace: updates to tip

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

>
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > But I do notice that not all functions produce a valid stack trace.
> > > Maybe it would be better to add that api :-?
> >
> > yes - i think that API would be more intuitive, and that way people could
> > mix more interesting functions (with stack traces) with less important
> > functions (no stack traces).
>
> Ah, that's the point. We can't mix and match on these. Either all
> functions that are traced do the stack trace, or none do. This is where
> the new api may be confusing. [...]

that would be confusing indeed.

> [...] We can register a function to be traced via the function pointer,
> and we can pick which functions to trace, but we can not separate out
> different functions for different traces.

Why not? We could have a hash of all traced functions with metadata
attached. Since patching functions in/out would be a relatively rare
operation, this would be a highly efficient read-mostly hash.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-16 17:05    [W:2.195 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site