lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] new irq tracer
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:11:05AM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:34:12PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Jason Baron (jbaron@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:48:28AM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > > KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > >> /**
> > > > >> * handle_IRQ_event - irq action chain handler
> > > > >> * @irq: the interrupt number
> > > > >> @@ -354,7 +358,9 @@ irqreturn_t handle_IRQ_event(unsigned int irq, struct irqaction *action)
> > > > >> local_irq_enable_in_hardirq();
> > > > >>
> > > > >> do {
> > > > >> + trace_irq_entry(irq);
> > > > >> ret = action->handler(irq, action->dev_id);
> > > > >> + trace_irq_exit(irq, ret);
> > > > >> if (ret == IRQ_HANDLED)
> > > > >> status |= action->flags;
> > > > >> retval |= ret;
> > > > >
> > > > > Nobdy want unnecessary redundant tracepoint.
> > > > > Please discuss with mathieu, and merge his tracepoint.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, from the viewpoint of trouble shooting, the place of LTTng's tracepoint
> > > > is enough. However, from the same viewpoint, it should pass irq-number
> > > > to irq-exit event too, because we may lost some previous events by buffer-overflow
> > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > trace_irq_entry(irq, NULL);
> > > > ret = _handle_IRQ_event(irq, action);
> > > > trace_irq_exit(irq, ret);
> > > > ^^^^
> > > >
> > >
> > > the lttng tracepoints wrap the calls to _handle_IRQ_event in 3
> > > different places. So the above suggested irq tracepoint provides the
> > > same information with 4 less tracepoints in the code. So I believe its
> > > simpler - plus we can understand which action handlers are handling the
> > > interrupt.
> > >
> >
> > The main thing I dislike about only tracing action->handler() calls is
> > that you are not tracing an IRQ per se, but rather the invocation of a
> > given handler within the interrupt. For instance, it would be difficult
> > to calculate the maximum interrupt latency for a given interrupt line,
> > because you don't have the "real" irq entry/exit events, just the
> > individual handler() calls.
> >
> > But I agree that knowing which handler is called is important.
> >
> > How about this compromise :
> >
> > trace_irq_entry(irq, action)
> > _handle_IRQ_event()
> > for each action {
> > trace_irq_handler(action, ret);
> > ret = action->handler(irq, action->dev_id);
> > ...
> > }
> > trace_irq_exit(action_ret);
> >
> > Would that give you the information you need ?
> >
> > Here trace_irq_handler would be passed the _current_ action invoked and
> > the _previous_ action return value. Note that we should initialize
> > irqreturn_t ret to some initial value if we do this. That should keep
> > the tracing overhead minimal.
> >
>
> maybe...although that would require re-arranging the 'while' loop in
> 'handle_IRQ_event' from a do..while loop to a 'while' loop, which will
> require an extra branch check, and then we still have to record the last 'ret'
> value. I'm not that keen on re-arranging this for trace data...
>
> Using Steve's new 'DEFINE_TRACE_FMT', I can get function graph trace
> as follows using the original two tracepoints (patch below):
>
> 3) | handle_IRQ_event() {
> 3) | /* (irq_handler_entry) irq=28 handler=eth0 */
> 3) | e1000_intr_msi() {
> 3) 2.460 us | __napi_schedule();
> 3) 9.416 us | }
> 3) | /* (irq_handler_exit) irq=28 handler=eth0 return=handled */
> 3) + 22.935 us | }
>
> thanks,
>
> -Jason
>


I'm impressed by this new TRACE_FMT system.
It means that I will just need to toggle a value on a /debug/trace/events/irq_stuff/enable
to have the useful informations as comments inside a trace, or in a whole dedicated traces.

I've played with it a part of the night to test the bprintk patch, this is awesome!



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-26 17:23    [W:0.843 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site