> > How important is it that the tracepoint is *inside* the enter/exit
> > handling? If not, it would be simpler to just do:
> >
> > smp_trace_irq_handler()
> > {
> > trace_irq_entry();
> > smp_irq_handler();
> > trace_irq_exit();
> > }
> >
> > ... which seems a bit cleaner. If this isn't possible, then this
> > patch is fine, but please add to the patch description why the simple
> > wrapper isn't doable.
>
> The problem is with irq_enter/exit() being called. They must be called before
> trace_irq_enter/exit(), because of the rcu_irq_enter()
> must be called before any tracepoints are used, as tracepoints use rcu to
> synchronize.
>
I tried to place tracepoints outside the enter/exit handling. But it didn't
work because of the rcu_irq_enter().
> Now perhaps we could do this and have trace_irq_entry().
>
> Not only that, the tracepoint callbacks expect irq_enter() to already be
> called.
>
> Hmm, if irq_enter() can nest, which I think it can, perhaps we can call
> irq_enter() first. I'm not sure if that will screw up the second
> irq_entry() inside smp_irq_handler().
>
> smp_trace_irq_hander()
> {
> irq_entry();
> trace_irq_entry();
> smp_irq_handler();
> trace_irq_exit();
> irq_exit();
> }
If irq_enter() is nested, it may have a time penalty because it has to check if
it was already called or not.
It doesn't satisfy a goal of this patch.
Therefore, I think current coding is reasonable.
I will update the patch description.
Seiji
--
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/
