From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 012261EA7C0; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 13:36:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738848976; cv=none; b=YlE6VcB5XgnYqOhWArc6TW9gr5lVhrxmZ9qngh7S5AYiT4VaTdW0js4BaryanrxGcFfZkhvPv3HvGktHAT7JPV2RZAAw2YPCh28iqc2L5+fDYbHR4P6RrY5cYX/bYk0VEWCkgoTSUvkMr+dFzkntDNZ7qFu2Wp7VqIQixDXFAYs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738848976; c=relaxed/simple; bh=X1X/47qLoyQJnJUNGHCpNtuoq2dYcD2wrDCVemNAsAw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=oHfHVUFDJy8VwKlndACTWU1cFDCNdKFxFymQn5JDhcHjevBOTF2X5b4w2tvdLasLsLIY4NQEBBfVTU0eAmtMUsL/dZkI9aXiiWYoTnuHPuyoJ2FlfPrH2OZwuPfdCsyGTXknXepGLhvVkdnj9H0buw8BKJvVdwyasdoQ6si21VY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4CE0C4CEDD; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 13:36:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:36:54 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Gabriele Monaco Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Masami Hiramatsu , linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/11] sched: Add sched tracepoints for RV task model Message-ID: <20250206083654.6ea1d3f9@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <1818165c4cbaedfb7314f4a200a273454ce49b63.camel@redhat.com> References: <20250206080952.98478-1-gmonaco@redhat.com> <20250206080952.98478-4-gmonaco@redhat.com> <20250206081942.GJ7145@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20250206085738.GL7145@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1818165c4cbaedfb7314f4a200a273454ce49b63.camel@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.20.0git84 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 12:47:17 +0100 Gabriele Monaco wrote: > > > What do you think would be better? > > > > So I would think having the tracepoint in-line would be better. > > Because > > as is, everything gets to have this pointless CALL to an empty > > function. > > > > If this were x86_64 only, I would suggest using static_call(), but > > barring that, the static_branch() already in the tracepoint is the > > best > > we can do. > > > > Ok, I see your point now.. > > Adding the trace_ call inline seems far from trivial to me, but we > could indeed do what's suggested in tracepoint-defs.h and practically > use a static branch to call this trace_set_current_state, not sure if > this is already what you were suggesting, though. Right, due to the macro magic of how tracepoints are created, you can't have them in header files. It causes too many side effects that can easily break the build. -- Steve