Re: [RFC PATCH 16/22 -v2] add get_monotonic_cycles

Steven Rostedt
2008-01-19T03:55:54Z

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> All this complexity is to be justified by keeping the raw prev/next
> pointers from being sent to a naive tracer? It seems to me way out of
> proportion.

Damn, and I just blew away all my marker code for something like this ;-)

Actually, you just gave me a great idea that I think can help all of us.
OK, Mathieu may not be in total agreement, but I think this is the
ultimate compromise.

We have in sched.c the following marker:

trace_mark(kernel_sched_scheduler, "prev %p next %p", prev, next);

Then Mathieu can add in some code somewhere (or a module, or something)

ret = marker_probe_register("kernel_sched_scheduler",
"prev %p next %p",
pretty_print_sched_switch, NULL);

static void pretty_print_sched_switch(const struct marker *mdata,
void *private_data,
const char *format, ...)
{
va_list ap;
struct task_struct *prev;
struct task_struct *next;

va_start(ap, format);
prev = va_arg(ap, typeof(prev));
next = va_arg(ap, typeof(next));
va_end;

trace_mark(kernel_pretty_print_sched_switch,
"prev_pid %d next_pid %d prev_state %ld",
prev->pid, next->pid, prev->state);
}

Then LTTng on startup could arm the normal kernel_sched_switch code and
have the user see the nice one. All without adding any more goo or
overhead to the non tracing case, and keeping a few critical markers with
enough information to be useful to other tracers!

Thoughts?

-- Steve