lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2/9] LTTng instrumentation - irq
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:12:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 06:50:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:56:27AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > > Instrumentation of IRQ related events : irq_entry, irq_exit and
> > > > > irq_next_handler.
> > > > >
> > > > > It allows tracers to perform latency analysis on those various types of
> > > > > interrupts and to detect interrupts with max/min/avg duration. It helps
> > > > > detecting driver or hardware problems which cause an ISR to take ages to
> > > > > execute. It has been shown to be the case with bogus hardware causing an mmio
> > > > > read to take a few milliseconds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Those tracepoints are used by LTTng.
> > > > >
> > > > > About the performance impact of tracepoints (which is comparable to markers),
> > > > > even without immediate values optimizations, tests done by Hideo Aoki on ia64
> > > > > show no regression. His test case was using hackbench on a kernel where
> > > > > scheduler instrumentation (about 5 events in code scheduler code) was added.
> > > > > See the "Tracepoints" patch header for performance result detail.
> > > > >
> > > > > irq_entry and irq_exit not declared static because they appear in x86 arch code.
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea behind logging irq/softirq/tasklet/(and eventually syscall) entry and
> > > > > exit events is to be able to recreate the kernel execution state at a given
> > > > > point in time. Knowing which execution context is responsible for a given trace
> > > > > event is _very_ valuable in trace data analysis.
> > > > >
> > > > > The IRQ instrumentation instruments the IRQ handler entry and exit. Jason
> > > > > instrumented the irq notifier chain calls (irq_handler_entry/exit). His approach
> > > > > provides information about which handler is being called, but does not map
> > > > > correctly to the fact that _multiple_ handlers are being called from within the
> > > > > same interrupt handler. From an interrupt latency analysis POV, this is
> > > > > incorrect.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Since we are passing back the irq number, and we can not be
> > > > interrupted by the same irq, I think it should be pretty clear we
> > > > are in the same handler. That said, the extra entry/exit
> > > > tracepoints could make the sequence of events simpler to decipher,
> > > > which is important. The code looks good, and provides at least as
> > > > much information as the patch that I proposed. So i'll be happy
> > > > either way :)
> > >
> > > We already have your patch merged up in the tracing tree and it
> > > gives entry+exit tracepoints.
> > >
> > > Ingo
> >
> > maybe i wasn't clear. Entry and exit as I proposed and as in the
> > tracing tree are for entry and exit into each handler per irq.
> > Mathieu is proposing an entry/exit tracepoint per irq, and a 3rd
> > tracepoint to tell us which handler is being called and its return
> > code. hope this is clear.
>
> Ok, i misunderstood that.
>
> Mathieu's is slightly more compact, but yours is more logical.
>
> I believe your pre/post IRQ handler callback is the right model - it
> decouples device IRQ handling from any notion of 'IRQ'.
>
> For example, we could correctly express "handler got executed by an
> IRQ thread" via it - while via Mathieu's scheme it does not really
> map to that.
>
> So if then i think there should be a third tracepoint in addition to
> your two existing tracepoints: a 'raw vector' type of tracepoint.
> It's added both to do_IRQ() entry point, but also to the various
> common SMP IPI entry points: reschedule, TLB flush and local timer
> IRQ tick.
>
> The best information there to pass to the probe is the raw vector
> number, and the ptregs structure.
>
> Hm?
>

yes, this was my thinking too. The handler tracepoints are useful in and
of themselves...and I was planning to do a separate patch, instrumenting what
you are calling the 'raw vector'...

thanks,

-Jason




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-27 20:25    [W:1.399 / U:0.568 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site