Re: Kernel marker has no performance impact on ia64.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 01:05:52PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> [...]
> >> "sched_switch(struct task_struct * next, struct task_struct * prev)":"next %p prev %p"
> >> out of tree. Thus, you can use the printf-style format parser.
> > 
> > That's an interesting idea, but errors in this table would themselves
> > only be caught at C compilation time.

> Hmm, why would you think so?  I think if we can't find corresponding
> entry from the lookup table, it becomes an error.

Sure, but if the entry exists but is wrong, we'd emit C code that
won't compile.


> [...] Even if you use trace_mark() markers, you have to post a
> kernel patch which passes the prev->pid to the marking point and to
> discuss it.  for example,
> DEFINE_TRACE(sched_switch, (int prev_pid, int next_pid), prev_pid, next_pid)

(If it were up to me, I would add the task pointers too, which
debuginfo-less systemtap could ignore but other tracers may use.)


> But it might not so general, we have to discuss what parameters are
> enough good for each marking point.

That's exactly what the "lttng instrumentation markers" threads from
the recent past had started.


- FChE
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/