On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:55:54AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:42:36 +0100 > Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 05:36:40PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > [ Jiri, can you take a look at this. You can also apply it on top of my > > > branch ftrace/core, and run any specific tests. I just need to nuke > > > that control structure for further updates with ftrace. ] > > > > > > > > > Currently perf has its own list function within the ftrace infrastructure > > > that seems to be used only to allow for it to have per-cpu disabling as > > > well > > > as a check to make sure that it's not called while RCU is not watching. It > > > uses something called the "control_ops" which is used to iterate over ops > > > under it with the control_list_func(). > > > > > > The problem is that this control_ops and control_list_func unnecessarily > > > complicates the code. By replacing FTRACE_OPS_FL_CONTROL with two new > > > flags > > > (FTRACE_OPS_FL_RCU and FTRACE_OPS_FL_PER_CPU) we can remove all the code > > > that is special with the control ops and add the needed checks within the > > > generic ftrace_list_func(). > > > > hum, > > do we need also change for the trampoline, something like below? > > > > I needed attached patch to get the perf ftrace:function > > event work properly.. > > Hmm, I thought that I forced the list function when RCU or PER_CPU > was set. Oh wait. I have CONFIG_PREEMPT set, which will change the > logic slightly. I'm guessing you have PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY set. I'll try > that out.
yep, but the trampoline has separate code path to set the ops func jirka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
