From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problem with CREATE_TRACE_POINTS and recursion safety
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:06:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49E6847B.9000003@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904152042350.4459@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>
>> I'm having a problem with CREATE_TRACE_POINTS being too indiscriminate. The
>> trouble is that it not only creates tracepoint definitions for the intended
>> tracepoints, but any other tracepoint definitions which get included
>> incidentally.
>>
>> For example, I'm seeing my paravirt tracepoints being instantiated in both
>> kernel/sched.o and kernel/irq/manage.o as side-effects of the scheduler and
>> irq tracepoints being instantiated.
>>
>> I'm experimenting with a different scheme, wherein a subsystem defines
>> CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS in the .c file where it wants to instantiate the
>> tracepoints - rather than CREATE_TRACE_POINTS - and its trace/events/foo.h
>> does:
>>
>> #ifdef CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS
>> #undef CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS /* avoid infinite recursion */
>> #include <trace/instantiate_trace.h>
>> #else
>> #include <trace/define_trace.h>
>> #endif
>>
>> where instantiate_trace.h is:
>>
>> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
>> #include <trace/define_trace.h>
>> #undef CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
>>
>> (Just to prevent a bit more repeated boilerplate in each events definition
>> file.)
>>
>> This seems to work. (Update: no it doesn't. WTF has paravirt-trace.o got
>> duplicate kmem tracepoints?!)
>>
>
> kmem was a PITA. Looks like we might need to do a:
>
> #ifdef CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS
> #include <trace/define_trace.h>
> #endif
>
The sched and irq tracepoints have the same general problem.
> type of thing, and have each user define their own CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS
> that they want to instantiate. This should be a requirement on any
> trace point header that is used in other headers.
>
> Does just adding the above to the kmem.h header and your header fix it for
> you?
>
No, I have a complete patch to do what I'm proposing here, and kmem went
ahead and failed anyway. I'll post a cleaned up set of RFC patches and
try to track down what's happening later.
And there seems to be a secondary problem with kmem tracepoints being
called without an explicit #include of <trace/events/kmem.h>, so I'm
seeing compiler errors relating to that too:
CC arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-trace.o
In file included from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/slab.h:165,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/percpu.h:6,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/vmstat.h:6,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/mm.h:596,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/ring_buffer.h:6,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/ftrace_event.h:6,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/trace/ftrace.h:20,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/trace/define_trace.h:64,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/trace/instantiate_trace.h:7,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/trace/events/pvops.h:1186,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-trace.c:5:
/home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/slab_def.h: In function 'kmalloc':
/home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/slab_def.h:157: error: implicit declaration of function 'trace_kmalloc'
Also, the pvops trace stuff adds quite a lot of overhead to the kernel
size - and probably runtime - so I think we'll need to have Kconfig
switches for each set of trace events rather than a single fat
CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS switch.
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-16 1:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-16 0:34 Problem with CREATE_TRACE_POINTS and recursion safety Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-04-16 0:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-04-16 1:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2009-04-16 2:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-04-16 2:23 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-16 2:50 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-04-16 3:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-04-16 11:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-04-16 13:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-04-16 2:45 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49E6847B.9000003@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.