From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43BE5507.3040805@domain.hid> Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:31:19 +0100 From: Philippe Gerum MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <43BC4FFB.8040709@domain.hid> <43BCF891.1080402@domain.hid> <43BCFFBB.1080303@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <43BCFFBB.1080303@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Xenomai-core] Re: [Adeos-main] Re: [PATCH] latency tracer update List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: adeos-main@gna.org, xenomai-core 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 > Adeos-main@domain.hid > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main -- Philippe.