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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
