Re: [PATCH] tracing/filters: allow event filters to be set only when not tracing

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 01:15:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 03:52:55PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > So assuming we can't use rcu for this, it would be nice to have a way to
> > > > > > > > 'pause' tracing so the current filter can be removed i.e. some version
> > > > > > > > of stop_trace()/start_trace() that make sure nothing is still executing
> > > > > > > > or can enter filter_match_preds() while the current call->preds is being
> > > > > > > > destroyed.  Seems like it would be straightforward to implement for the
> > > > > > > > event tracer, since each event maps to a tracepoint that could be
> > > > > > > > temporarily unregistered/reregistered, but maybe not so easy for the
> > > > > > > > ftrace tracers...
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In principle, it would be possible to rework RCU so that instead of the
> > > > > > > whole idle loop being a quiescent state, there is a single quiescent state
> > > > > > > at one point in each idle loop.  The reason that I have been avoiding this
> > > > > > > is that there are a lot of idle loops out there, and it would be a bit
> > > > > > > annoying to (1) find them all and update them and (2) keep track of all of
> > > > > > > them to ensure that new ones cannot slip in without the quiescent state.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > But it could be done if the need is there.  Simple enough change.
> > > > > > > The following patch shows the general approach, assuming that CPUs
> > > > > > > are never put to sleep without entering nohz mode.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think using synchronize_sched() should be good enough for what we need.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Again, as long as either (1) you are OK with synchronize_sched()
> > > > > ignoring preempt-disable sequences in the idle loop or (2) we rework RCU
> > > > > to add something like an rcu_idle() call in each idle loop.
> > > > 
> > > > 3) add "notrace" to the idle functions ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > But perhaps the rcu_idle might be the best idea.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > And tracing the idle time is also sometimes very useful :-)
> > 
> > Agreed. I guess choice 2 is the best answer.
> 
> Fair enough!
> 
> Would one of you please check the placement of the rcu_idle() in the
> patch?  Patch reproduced below for convenience.

Hmmm...  Do the start_critical_timings() and stop_critical_timings()
functions have anything to do with ftrace()?

It does not look like I can just bury RCU-idle controls in these
functions, given that they are also invoked around call_console_drivers(),
but if all the idle loops are surrounded by stop_critical_timings() and
start_critical_timings(), that would ease location of all the idle
loops.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul