lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/5] irq: add tracepoint to softirq_raise
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 11:43:12AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 17:29 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > > /*
> > > * These correspond to the IORESOURCE_IRQ_* defines in
> > > @@ -407,7 +408,12 @@ asmlinkage void do_softirq(void);
> > > asmlinkage void __do_softirq(void);
> > > extern void open_softirq(int nr, void (*action)(struct softirq_action *));
> > > extern void softirq_init(void);
> > > -#define __raise_softirq_irqoff(nr) do { or_softirq_pending(1UL << (nr)); } while (0)
> > > +static inline void __raise_softirq_irqoff(unsigned int nr)
> > > +{
> > > + trace_softirq_raise((struct softirq_action *)&nr, NULL);
>
> Perhaps doing:
>
> trace_softirq_raise((struct softirq_action *)((unsigend long)nr),
> NULL);
>
> and ...
>
> > > + or_softirq_pending(1UL << nr);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > extern void raise_softirq_irqoff(unsigned int nr);
> > > extern void raise_softirq(unsigned int nr);
> > > extern void wakeup_softirqd(void);
> > > diff --git a/include/trace/events/irq.h b/include/trace/events/irq.h
> > > index 0e4cfb6..3ddda02 100644
> > > --- a/include/trace/events/irq.h
> > > +++ b/include/trace/events/irq.h
> > > @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@
> > > #define _TRACE_IRQ_H
> > >
> > > #include <linux/tracepoint.h>
> > > -#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > > +
> > > +struct irqaction;
> > > +struct softirq_action;
> > >
> > > #define softirq_name(sirq) { sirq##_SOFTIRQ, #sirq }
> > > #define show_softirq_name(val) \
> > > @@ -93,7 +95,10 @@ DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(softirq,
> > > ),
> > >
> > > TP_fast_assign(
> > > - __entry->vec = (int)(h - vec);
> > > + if (vec)
> > > + __entry->vec = (int)(h - vec);
> > > + else
> > > + __entry->vec = *((int *)h);
>
> __entry->vec = (int)h;
>
> would be better.
>
>
> > > ),
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems that this will break softirq_entry/exit tracepoints.
> > __entry->vec will deref vec->action() for these two, which is not
> > what we want.
> >
> > If you can't have the same tracepoint signature for the three, just
> > split the new one in a seperate TRACE_EVENT().
>
> Doing the above will at least be a bit safer.


Agreed, I'm going to change that in the patch.

Thanks.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-03 17:53    [W:0.433 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site