Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] irq: add tracepoint to softirq_raise

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 11:43:12AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 17:29 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > >  /*
> > >   * These correspond to the IORESOURCE_IRQ_* defines in
> > > @@ -407,7 +408,12 @@ asmlinkage void do_softirq(void);
> > >  asmlinkage void __do_softirq(void);
> > >  extern void open_softirq(int nr, void (*action)(struct softirq_action *));
> > >  extern void softirq_init(void);
> > > -#define __raise_softirq_irqoff(nr) do { or_softirq_pending(1UL << (nr)); } while (0)
> > > +static inline void __raise_softirq_irqoff(unsigned int nr)
> > > +{
> > > +	trace_softirq_raise((struct softirq_action *)&nr, NULL);
> 
> Perhaps doing:
> 
> 	trace_softirq_raise((struct softirq_action *)((unsigend long)nr),
> 				NULL);
> 
> and ...
> 
> > > +	or_softirq_pending(1UL << nr);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  extern void raise_softirq_irqoff(unsigned int nr);
> > >  extern void raise_softirq(unsigned int nr);
> > >  extern void wakeup_softirqd(void);
> > > diff --git a/include/trace/events/irq.h b/include/trace/events/irq.h
> > > index 0e4cfb6..3ddda02 100644
> > > --- a/include/trace/events/irq.h
> > > +++ b/include/trace/events/irq.h
> > > @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@
> > >  #define _TRACE_IRQ_H
> > >  
> > >  #include <linux/tracepoint.h>
> > > -#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > > +
> > > +struct irqaction;
> > > +struct softirq_action;
> > >  
> > >  #define softirq_name(sirq) { sirq##_SOFTIRQ, #sirq }
> > >  #define show_softirq_name(val)				\
> > > @@ -93,7 +95,10 @@ DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(softirq,
> > >  	),
> > >  
> > >  	TP_fast_assign(
> > > -		__entry->vec = (int)(h - vec);
> > > +		if (vec)
> > > +			__entry->vec = (int)(h - vec);
> > > +		else
> > > +			__entry->vec = *((int *)h);
> 
> 			__entry->vec = (int)h;
> 
> would be better.
> 
> 
> > >  	),
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > It seems that this will break softirq_entry/exit tracepoints.
> > __entry->vec will deref vec->action() for these two, which is not
> > what we want.
> > 
> > If you can't have the same tracepoint signature for the three, just
> > split the new one in a seperate TRACE_EVENT().
> 
> Doing the above will at least be a bit safer.


Agreed, I'm going to change that in the patch.

Thanks.