Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing: Add CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING to clean up kernel.h

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing: Add CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING to clean up kernel.h

[Steven Rostedt]

On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 05:34:32 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@kernel.org> wrote:

> Instead of having trace_printk.h included in kernel.h, create a config
> TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING that when set will update the CFLAGS in the
> Makefile to allow developers to add trace_printk() without the need to add
> the include for it. Having it included in the Makefile keeps it from being
> in the dependency chain and it will not waste extra CPU cycles for those
> building the kernel without using trace_printk.

Bah, I only tested with the config option enabled, and missed some
dependencies with it disabled.

For instance, rcu.h also uses ftrace_dump() so that too needs to go
into kernel.h. I also need to add a few more includes to trace_printk.h.

OK, I need to run this through all my tests to find where else I missed
adding the includes. But the idea should hopefully satisfy everyone.

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing: Add CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING to clean up kernel.h

[Yury Norov]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 05:47:21AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 05:34:32 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Instead of having trace_printk.h included in kernel.h, create a config
> > TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING that when set will update the CFLAGS in the
> > Makefile to allow developers to add trace_printk() without the need to add
> > the include for it. Having it included in the Makefile keeps it from being
> > in the dependency chain and it will not waste extra CPU cycles for those
> > building the kernel without using trace_printk.
> 
> Bah, I only tested with the config option enabled, and missed some
> dependencies with it disabled.

Yes you did.
 
> For instance, rcu.h also uses ftrace_dump() so that too needs to go
> into kernel.h.

No, it shouldn't.

> I also need to add a few more includes to trace_printk.h.

> OK, I need to run this through all my tests to find where else I missed
> adding the includes. But the idea should hopefully satisfy everyone.

If you include it under config in kernel.h, to make the kernel buildable,
you need to include trace_printk.h explicitly where it's actually used.
IOW, apply my patch v4-7.

Then, developers who use trace_printk() on their development machine,
will be really frustrated when their debugging code will break client
build just because CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING is disabled there.
They will spend a day, at best, communicating with remote managers,
and end up with adding #include <linux/trace_printk.h> in the files
they touch. Is that your plan?

If I was one of those developers, the solution would be simple for me:
don't use trace_printk() at all.

Thanks,
Yury

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing: Add CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING to clean up kernel.h

[Yury Norov]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 09:39:17AM -0400, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 05:47:21AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 05:34:32 -0400
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Instead of having trace_printk.h included in kernel.h, create a config
> > > TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING that when set will update the CFLAGS in the
> > > Makefile to allow developers to add trace_printk() without the need to add
> > > the include for it. Having it included in the Makefile keeps it from being
> > > in the dependency chain and it will not waste extra CPU cycles for those
> > > building the kernel without using trace_printk.
> > 
> > Bah, I only tested with the config option enabled, and missed some
> > dependencies with it disabled.
> 
> Yes you did.
>  
> > For instance, rcu.h also uses ftrace_dump() so that too needs to go
> > into kernel.h.
> 
> No, it shouldn't.
> 
> > I also need to add a few more includes to trace_printk.h.
> 
> > OK, I need to run this through all my tests to find where else I missed
> > adding the includes. But the idea should hopefully satisfy everyone.
> 
> If you include it under config in kernel.h, to make the kernel buildable,

I mean: in kernel.h or in Makefile.

> you need to include trace_printk.h explicitly where it's actually used.
> IOW, apply my patch v4-7.
> 
> Then, developers who use trace_printk() on their development machine,
> will be really frustrated when their debugging code will break client
> build just because CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING is disabled there.
> They will spend a day, at best, communicating with remote managers,
> and end up with adding #include <linux/trace_printk.h> in the files
> they touch. Is that your plan?
> 
> If I was one of those developers, the solution would be simple for me:
> don't use trace_printk() at all.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yury

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing: Add CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING to clean up kernel.h

[Steven Rostedt]

On June 21, 2026 11:13:00 AM GMT+01:00, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org> wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 21 2026 at 05:34, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> Instead of having trace_printk.h included in kernel.h, create a config
>> TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING that when set will update the CFLAGS in the
>> Makefile to allow developers to add trace_printk() without the need to add
>> the include for it. Having it included in the Makefile keeps it from being
>> in the dependency chain and it will not waste extra CPU cycles for those
>> building the kernel without using trace_printk.
>
>IOW, you make it worse just because.
>
>With the header being separate I add the three trace_printk()s and the
>include to the source file I'm investigating. The recompile will build
>exactly this source file.
>
>Having to enable the config knob will result in a full kernel rebuild
>for no value.
>
>Seriously?

Like having lockdep enabled, this would always be set in the development environment. It's not something to only enable when you need to add a trace_printk. If you don't want to rebuild everything, by all means add the include file by file. There's nothing preventing you to do that with this solution.

-- Steve 

P.S. I'm replying on my phone as I'm in the London Tube. Thus why I'm not trimming my email.


>
>Thanks,
>
>        tglx
>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing: Add CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING to clean up kernel.h

[David Laight]

On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 12:13:00 +0200
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 21 2026 at 05:34, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Instead of having trace_printk.h included in kernel.h, create a config
> > TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING that when set will update the CFLAGS in the
> > Makefile to allow developers to add trace_printk() without the need to add
> > the include for it. Having it included in the Makefile keeps it from being
> > in the dependency chain and it will not waste extra CPU cycles for those
> > building the kernel without using trace_printk.  
> 
> IOW, you make it worse just because.
> 
> With the header being separate I add the three trace_printk()s and the
> include to the source file I'm investigating. The recompile will build
> exactly this source file.
> 
> Having to enable the config knob will result in a full kernel rebuild
> for no value.

Indeed...
Isn't trace_printk() just an extern?
Having it defined somewhere isn't going to make any difference to build times.

	David
 

> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
> 
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing: Move non-trace_printk prototypes back to kernel.h

[Yury Norov]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 05:34:31AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> 
> In order to remove the include to trace_printk.h from kernel.h the tracing
> control prototypes need to be moved back into kernel.h. That's because

Please don't. Instead, you can split them out to trace_control.h, and
include where needed. I actually have a prototype for it, FYI:

https://github.com/norov/linux/tree/trace_pritk3

> they are used in other common header files like rcu.h. There's no point in
> removing trace_printk.h from kernel.h if it just gets added back to other
> common headers.
> 
> Prototypes are very cheap for the compiler and should not be an issue.

It's not about cost, it's about mess. kernel.h is included everywhere.
Is that API needed everywhere? No, it's needed in literally 10 files.
So, no place in kernel.h.
 
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> ---
>  include/linux/kernel.h       | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/trace_printk.h | 17 -----------------
>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
> index e5570a16cbb1..c3c68128827c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> @@ -194,4 +194,22 @@ extern enum system_states system_state;
>  # define REBUILD_DUE_TO_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
>  #endif
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TRACING
> +void tracing_on(void);
> +void tracing_off(void);
> +int tracing_is_on(void);
> +void tracing_snapshot(void);
> +void tracing_snapshot_alloc(void);
> +void tracing_start(void);
> +void tracing_stop(void);
> +#else
> +static inline void tracing_start(void) { }
> +static inline void tracing_stop(void) { }
> +static inline void tracing_on(void) { }
> +static inline void tracing_off(void) { }
> +static inline int tracing_is_on(void) { return 0; }
> +static inline void tracing_snapshot(void) { }
> +static inline void tracing_snapshot_alloc(void) { }
> +#endif
> +
>  #endif
> diff --git a/include/linux/trace_printk.h b/include/linux/trace_printk.h
> index 3d54f440dccf..879fed0805fd 100644
> --- a/include/linux/trace_printk.h
> +++ b/include/linux/trace_printk.h
> @@ -35,15 +35,6 @@ enum ftrace_dump_mode {
>  };
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_TRACING
> -void tracing_on(void);
> -void tracing_off(void);
> -int tracing_is_on(void);
> -void tracing_snapshot(void);
> -void tracing_snapshot_alloc(void);
> -
> -extern void tracing_start(void);
> -extern void tracing_stop(void);
> -
>  static inline __printf(1, 2)
>  void ____trace_printk_check_format(const char *fmt, ...)
>  {
> @@ -176,16 +167,8 @@ __ftrace_vprintk(unsigned long ip, const char *fmt, va_list ap);
>  
>  extern void ftrace_dump(enum ftrace_dump_mode oops_dump_mode);
>  #else
> -static inline void tracing_start(void) { }
> -static inline void tracing_stop(void) { }
>  static inline void trace_dump_stack(int skip) { }
>  
> -static inline void tracing_on(void) { }
> -static inline void tracing_off(void) { }
> -static inline int tracing_is_on(void) { return 0; }
> -static inline void tracing_snapshot(void) { }
> -static inline void tracing_snapshot_alloc(void) { }
> -
>  static inline __printf(1, 2)
>  int trace_printk(const char *fmt, ...)
>  {
> -- 
> 2.53.0
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing: Move non-trace_printk prototypes back to kernel.h

[Steven Rostedt]

On June 21, 2026 2:08:37 PM GMT+01:00, Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 05:34:31AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
>> 
>> In order to remove the include to trace_printk.h from kernel.h the tracing
>> control prototypes need to be moved back into kernel.h. That's because
>
>Please don't. Instead, you can split them out to trace_control.h, and
>include where needed. I actually have a prototype for it, FYI:
>
>https://github.com/norov/linux/tree/trace_pritk3
>

Sure, I have no problem adding another header for this.

>> they are used in other common header files like rcu.h. There's no point in
>> removing trace_printk.h from kernel.h if it just gets added back to other
>> common headers.
>> 
>> Prototypes are very cheap for the compiler and should not be an issue.
>
>It's not about cost, it's about mess. kernel.h is included everywhere.
>Is that API needed everywhere? No, it's needed in literally 10 files.
>So, no place in kernel.h.
> 

Well one of those files is rcu.h which is also pretty much included everywhere. But OK.

-- Steve 


>> 
>> 2.53.0
>> 

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tracing: Move trace_printk.h out of kernel.h

[Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)]

Le 21/06/2026 à 11:34, Steven Rostedt a écrit :
> There's been complaints about trace_printk() being defined in kernel.h as it
> can increase the compilation time. As it is only used by some developers for
> debugging purposes, it should not be in kernel.h causing lots of wasted CPU
> cycles for those that do not ever care about it.

Do we have a measurement of the increased compilation time ?

Christophe

> 
> Instead, add a CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING option that developers that do
> use it can set and not have to always remember to add #include <linux/trace_printk.h>
> to the files they add trace_printk() while debugging. It also means that
> those that do not have that config set will not have to worry about wasted
> CPU cycles as it is only include in the CFLAGS when the option is set, and
> its completely ignored otherwise.
> 
> Steven Rostedt (2):
>        tracing: Move non-trace_printk prototypes back to kernel.h
>        tracing: Add CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING to clean up kernel.h
> 
> ----
>   .../driver_development_debugging_guide.rst         |  2 +-
>   Makefile                                           |  5 +++++
>   arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_xics.c                     |  1 +
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gtt.h                |  1 +
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.h                    |  1 +
>   drivers/hwtracing/stm/dummy_stm.c                  |  4 ++++
>   drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/trace_dbg.h             |  1 +
>   drivers/usb/early/xhci-dbc.c                       |  1 +
>   fs/ext4/inline.c                                   |  1 +
>   include/linux/kernel.h                             | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
>   include/linux/sunrpc/debug.h                       |  1 +
>   include/linux/trace_printk.h                       | 22 +++-------------------
>   kernel/trace/Kconfig                               | 10 ++++++++++
>   kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c               |  1 +
>   kernel/trace/trace.h                               |  1 +
>   samples/fprobe/fprobe_example.c                    |  1 +
>   samples/ftrace/ftrace-direct-modify.c              |  1 +
>   samples/ftrace/ftrace-direct-multi-modify.c        |  1 +
>   samples/ftrace/ftrace-direct-multi.c               |  2 +-
>   samples/ftrace/ftrace-direct-too.c                 |  2 +-
>   samples/ftrace/ftrace-direct.c                     |  2 +-
>   21 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tracing: Move trace_printk.h out of kernel.h

[Yury Norov]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 09:08:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 10:05:13 +0200
> "Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" <chleroy@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > There's been complaints about trace_printk() being defined in kernel.h as it
> > > can increase the compilation time. As it is only used by some developers for
> > > debugging purposes, it should not be in kernel.h causing lots of wasted CPU
> > > cycles for those that do not ever care about it.  
> > 
> > Do we have a measurement of the increased compilation time ?
> 
> I believe Yury does.

I re-run compilation is a more strict environment, and the difference
is negligible.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tracing: Move trace_printk.h out of kernel.h

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 05:34:30AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> There's been complaints about trace_printk() being defined in kernel.h as it
> can increase the compilation time. As it is only used by some developers for
> debugging purposes, it should not be in kernel.h causing lots of wasted CPU
> cycles for those that do not ever care about it.
> 
> Instead, add a CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING option that developers that do
> use it can set and not have to always remember to add #include <linux/trace_printk.h>
> to the files they add trace_printk() while debugging. It also means that
> those that do not have that config set will not have to worry about wasted
> CPU cycles as it is only include in the CFLAGS when the option is set, and
> its completely ignored otherwise.

Did you forget your C 101 class? If you use a function, you gotta
include the relevant header.

You don't see userspace saying: 'Hey, you know what, perhaps we should
add stdio.h to every other header, just in case someone wants to
printf()' either.

I really don't understand your argument. Yes, maybe someone will forget
and then either their editor (if they have a halfway modern setup with
LSP enabled) or their build will complain, but so what? This is all
trivial stuff, surely we have more pressing matters to concern outselves
with?

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tracing: Move trace_printk.h out of kernel.h

[Randy Dunlap]

On 6/22/26 1:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 05:34:30AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> There's been complaints about trace_printk() being defined in kernel.h as it
>> can increase the compilation time. As it is only used by some developers for
>> debugging purposes, it should not be in kernel.h causing lots of wasted CPU
>> cycles for those that do not ever care about it.
>>
>> Instead, add a CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING option that developers that do
>> use it can set and not have to always remember to add #include <linux/trace_printk.h>
>> to the files they add trace_printk() while debugging. It also means that
>> those that do not have that config set will not have to worry about wasted
>> CPU cycles as it is only include in the CFLAGS when the option is set, and
>> its completely ignored otherwise.
> 
> Did you forget your C 101 class? If you use a function, you gotta
> include the relevant header.

Also item #1 in Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst.

> You don't see userspace saying: 'Hey, you know what, perhaps we should
> add stdio.h to every other header, just in case someone wants to
> printf()' either.
> 
> I really don't understand your argument. Yes, maybe someone will forget
> and then either their editor (if they have a halfway modern setup with
> LSP enabled) or their build will complain, but so what? This is all
> trivial stuff, surely we have more pressing matters to concern outselves
> with?



-- 
~Randy