From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problem with CREATE_TRACE_POINTS and recursion safety
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:06:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49E6847B.9000003@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904152042350.4459@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>
>> I'm having a problem with CREATE_TRACE_POINTS being too indiscriminate. The
>> trouble is that it not only creates tracepoint definitions for the intended
>> tracepoints, but any other tracepoint definitions which get included
>> incidentally.
>>
>> For example, I'm seeing my paravirt tracepoints being instantiated in both
>> kernel/sched.o and kernel/irq/manage.o as side-effects of the scheduler and
>> irq tracepoints being instantiated.
>>
>> I'm experimenting with a different scheme, wherein a subsystem defines
>> CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS in the .c file where it wants to instantiate the
>> tracepoints - rather than CREATE_TRACE_POINTS - and its trace/events/foo.h
>> does:
>>
>> #ifdef CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS
>> #undef CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS /* avoid infinite recursion */
>> #include <trace/instantiate_trace.h>
>> #else
>> #include <trace/define_trace.h>
>> #endif
>>
>> where instantiate_trace.h is:
>>
>> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
>> #include <trace/define_trace.h>
>> #undef CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
>>
>> (Just to prevent a bit more repeated boilerplate in each events definition
>> file.)
>>
>> This seems to work. (Update: no it doesn't. WTF has paravirt-trace.o got
>> duplicate kmem tracepoints?!)
>>
>
> kmem was a PITA. Looks like we might need to do a:
>
> #ifdef CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS
> #include <trace/define_trace.h>
> #endif
>
The sched and irq tracepoints have the same general problem.
> type of thing, and have each user define their own CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS
> that they want to instantiate. This should be a requirement on any
> trace point header that is used in other headers.
>
> Does just adding the above to the kmem.h header and your header fix it for
> you?
>
No, I have a complete patch to do what I'm proposing here, and kmem went
ahead and failed anyway. I'll post a cleaned up set of RFC patches and
try to track down what's happening later.
And there seems to be a secondary problem with kmem tracepoints being
called without an explicit #include of <trace/events/kmem.h>, so I'm
seeing compiler errors relating to that too:
CC arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-trace.o
In file included from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/slab.h:165,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/percpu.h:6,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/vmstat.h:6,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/mm.h:596,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/ring_buffer.h:6,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/ftrace_event.h:6,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/trace/ftrace.h:20,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/trace/define_trace.h:64,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/trace/instantiate_trace.h:7,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/include/trace/events/pvops.h:1186,
from /home/jeremy/git/linux/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-trace.c:5:
/home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/slab_def.h: In function 'kmalloc':
/home/jeremy/git/linux/include/linux/slab_def.h:157: error: implicit declaration of function 'trace_kmalloc'
Also, the pvops trace stuff adds quite a lot of overhead to the kernel
size - and probably runtime - so I think we'll need to have Kconfig
switches for each set of trace events rather than a single fat
CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS switch.
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-16 1:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-16 0:34 Problem with CREATE_TRACE_POINTS and recursion safety Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-04-16 0:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-04-16 1:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2009-04-16 2:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-04-16 2:23 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-16 2:50 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-04-16 3:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-04-16 11:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-04-16 13:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-04-16 2:45 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
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=49E6847B.9000003@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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