From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: IRQS off tracer - is it useful or not?
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:26:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E08AF23.2060901@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110625132112.GH23234@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On 6/25/2011 6:21 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> I've just been looking at the IRQS off tracer for the first time. I'm
> getting output such as:
>
> <idle>-0 0d.s3 0us!: _raw_spin_lock_irqsave <-_raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> <idle>-0 0dNs4 1709us+: _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore <-_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> <idle>-0 0dNs4 1770us : time_hardirqs_on <-_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> <idle>-0 0dNs4 1770us : <stack trace>
>
> from it, which doesn't seem to be very useful. Figuring out that it
> may be because the EABI unwinder doesn't work too well with my toolchain,
> I decided to try going for the more reliable frame pointer stuff. This
> gives me:
>
> kjournal-423 0d.s4 0us : trace_hardirqs_on <-_raw_spin_unlock_irq
> kjournal-423 0d.s4 0us : time_hardirqs_on <-_raw_spin_unlock_irq
> kjournal-423 0d.s3 0us!: trace_hardirqs_off <-_raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> kjournal-423 0d.s4 1709us+: trace_hardirqs_on <-_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> kjournal-423 0d.s4 1770us : time_hardirqs_on <-_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> kjournal-423 0d.s4 1770us : <stack trace>
> => time_hardirqs_on
> => trace_hardirqs_on_caller
> => trace_hardirqs_on
> => _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> => cfq_idle_slice_timer
> => run_timer_softirq
> => __do_softirq
> => irq_exit
>
> which is no better. It's telling me that {trace,time}_hardirqs_o{n,ff} is
> involved is absurd - of course that function is involved, because that's
> how these events are reported and that detail is just not interesting.
> And yet again, we still don't get to find out where IRQs were disabled.
Is ftrace enabled (/proc/sys/kernel/ftrace_enabled)? If it is you should
a least see the functions that were called while irqs were off.
There should also be a
=> started at: func_irq_off
=> ended at: func_irq_on
near the top of the latency trace although it may not be entirely useful
unless spinlocks are inlined. Perhaps we should start inlining spinlocks?
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-27 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-25 13:21 IRQS off tracer - is it useful or not? Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-25 13:42 ` murali at embeddedwireless.com
2011-06-27 16:26 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2011-06-27 16:54 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-27 17:31 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-06-27 20:17 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2011-06-27 20:38 ` Todd Poynor
2011-06-28 23:08 ` Frank Rowand
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=4E08AF23.2060901@codeaurora.org \
--to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).