Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi again,
here comes the first update of the new latency tracer.
arch/i386/kernel/entry.S | 27 +++
Is there any good reason to patch the callers of __ipipe_handle_irq
instead of instrumenting the callee directly?
To capture the invocation delay of __ipipe_handle_irq itself.
Ok.
arch/i386/kernel/ipipe-root.c | 4
include/asm-i386/system.h | 70 +++++++++
include/linux/ipipe_trace.h | 3
kernel/ipipe/Kconfig | 18 ++
kernel/ipipe/tracer.c | 247 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
6 files changed, 288 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
Meanwhile I found a solution for the described unterminated trace (put
an explicite trace_end at the end of __ipipe_unstall_iret_root),
Yeah, sorry for the delay in answering. That's indeed the way to do it.
included the irq number in the begin/end report, and stumbled over some
other remaining unterminated trace on a different machine. So, no need
to hurry with the merge (not the review! ;) ), I will publish a second
revision first.
Jan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Adeos-main mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main
--
Philippe.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
