lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] new irq tracer
Date
> > 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.

I agree with IRQ latency tracing is very important.
So now, We understand we have another two good requirement.

Therefore, I can agree to Mathieu's separete trace point idea and
Jason's current patch.

Thanks! good discussion.



>
> 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.







\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-27 04:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans