Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v5 08/11] tracing: not trace mips_timecounter_init() in MIPS | From | Wu Zhangjin <> | Date | Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:31:12 +0800 |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 22:43 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: [...] > > > > > > But I would rather see a __mips_notrace on these two core functions. > > > > What about this: __arch_notrace? If the arch need this, define it, > > otherwise, ignore it! if only graph tracer need it, define it in "#ifdef > > CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER ... #endif". > > > > The problem is that archs may want to disable tracing on different > places. > For example mips wants to disable tracing in timecounter_read_delta, > but another arch may want to disable tracing somewhere else. > > We'll then have several unrelated __arch_notrace. One that is relevant > for mips, another that is relevant for arch_foo, but all of them will > apply for all arch that have defined a __arch_notrace. > > It's true that __mips_notrace is not very elegant as it looks like > a specific arch annotation intruder. > > > But at least that gives us a per arch filter granularity. > > If only static ftrace could disappear, we could keep only dynamic > ftrace and we would then be able to filter dynamically. > But I'm not sure it's a good idea for archs integration. >
I think if we use something like __mips_notrace here, we may get lots of __ARCH_notraces here too, 'Cause some other platforms(at least, as I know, Microblaze will do it too) may also need to add one here, it will become:
__mips_notrace __ARCH1_notrace __ARCH2_notrace .... foo() {...}
A little ugly ;)
and If a new platform need it's __ARCH_notrace, they need to touch the common part of ftrace, more side-effects!
but with __arch_notrace, the archs only need to touch it's own part, Although there is a side-effect as you mentioned above ;)
So, what should we do?
Regards, Wu Zhangjin
| |