From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
Subject: Re: no cycles for certain xentrace entries
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:09:29 +0200
Message-ID: <20100929080929.GA24421@aepfle.de>
References: <20100831184458.GA24018@aepfle.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100831184458.GA24018@aepfle.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, Aug 31, Olaf Hering wrote:

> what is the reason for the empty tsc for some xentracing calls, like
> TRC_HVM_IOPORT_READ?
> It makes sorting the resulting logfile by tsc value difficult because
> the 0 entries end up at the beginning of the logfile.

This change appears to work for me.
So, what is the reason for the cycles parameter to trace_var()?

--- xen-4.0.1-testing.orig/xen/common/trace.c
+++ xen-4.0.1-testing/xen/common/trace.c
@@ -631,6 +631,7 @@ void __trace_var(u32 event, bool_t cycle
     if( !tb_init_done )
         return;

+    cycles = 1;
     /* Convert byte count into word count, rounding up */
     extra_word = (extra / sizeof(u32));
     if ( (extra % sizeof(u32)) != 0 )