Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Sep 2010 17:50:10 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |