From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9 - v2][RFC] tracing: Let tracepoints have data?passed to tracepoint callbacks
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 11:30:35 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100507153035.GA15267@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1273245338.22438.168.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 11:08 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > > > Can you show me where the C standard says it is safe to do so ?
> > >
> > > No, but it seems safe in the kernel ;-)
> >
> > The use of "seems" here does not give me a warm feeling of safety. ;)
>
> Right, which is why I added the below.
>
> >
> > >
> > > But that said. There is another option that will conform to this, and
> > > that is to add flags to registering tracepoints. I already wrote a patch
> > > for this in trying to do some other work (that I threw away).
> > >
> > >
> > > So here's the proposal.
> > >
> > > Change struct tracepoint_func to...
> > >
> > > struct tracepoint_func {
> > > void *func;
> > > void *data;
> > > unsigned int flags;
> > > };
> > >
> > >
> > > The flags is set when registered. If a function is registered with data,
> > > then the flags field will be set. Then the calling of the function can
> > > be:
> > >
> > > if ((it_func_ptr)->flags & TP_FL_DATA)
> > > ((void(*)(proto, void *))(it_func)(args, __data);
> > > else
> > > ((void(*)(proto))(it_func)(args);
> > >
> > > This would comply with the C standard.
> >
> > This would also add a branch on the tracing fast path, which I would like to
> > avoid. Why can't we simply change all prototypes to take an extra void *__data
> > parameter instead ?
>
> I'm fine with making the data parameter mandatory with all tracers. Thus
> the call back must require it. I would then move the data parameter from
> the end to the beginning.
>
> So a tracepoint with proto, will have a callback:
>
> void callback(void *data, proto);
>
> I'm fine with forcing all callbacks to include a data parameter if you
> are. This would also make the changes simpler.
Yes, I am all for it.
As for the extra type checking, it is basically just trying to force you to
generate matching caller-callee prototypes in your CPP macros. The goal is
really to check that the data parameter type match in both the caller and
callee. I see that as a mean to make sure nobody is going to try to take
shortcuts by playing with the callback types in the "undefined behavior" zone of
the C standard in future TRACE_EVENT() modifications.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> -- Steve
>
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-07 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-07 12:40 [PATCH 2/9 - v2][RFC] tracing: Let tracepoints have data passed to tracepoint callbacks Steven Rostedt
2010-05-07 14:39 ` [PATCH 2/9 - v2][RFC] tracing: Let tracepoints have data?passed " Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-05-07 14:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-05-07 15:08 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-05-07 15:15 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-05-07 15:30 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2010-05-07 15:45 ` Steven Rostedt
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-05-04 3:40 [PATCH 0/9 - v2][RFC] tracing: Lowering the footprint of TRACE_EVENTs Steven Rostedt
2010-05-04 3:40 ` [PATCH 2/9 - v2][RFC] tracing: Let tracepoints have data passed to tracepoint callbacks Steven Rostedt
2010-05-07 3:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-07 14:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-05-07 18:06 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-07 19:10 ` Steven Rostedt
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=20100507153035.GA15267@Krystal \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=mhiramat@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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