On 13/05/2020 17:43, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Wojciech Kudla <[email protected]> writes: >> On 13/05/2020 13:24, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> >>> Why would the SMP call function single interrupt go through the >>> PLATFORM_IPI_VECTOR? It goes as the name says through the >>> CALL_FUNCTION_SINGLE_VECTOR. >>> >> >> Wrong vector, my bad. >> >> However 2) still stands in my opinion. We don't have "ipi raise" trace >> point for x86. RESCHEDULE_VECTOR, CALL_FUNCTION_SINGLE_VECTOR, as >> well as TLB invalidation vectors are essentially >> inter-processor-interrupts if I'm not mistaken. Would a patch adding >> such trace point be considered here? > > Maybe. > > Though that IPI tracing is inconsistent across architectures. I'm not > really interested to have yet another x86 variant which is slightly > different than anything else. > > ARM and ARM64 share generic tracepoints for that, though the actual > tracepoint invocation is in the architecture specific code. > > If at all we really want to have the common IPIs which are required for > SMP support covered by generic tracepoints and have them in the generic > code and not sprinkled all over arch/*
How about we add ipi:ipi_raise trace points before: - arch_send_call_function_single_ipi(), and - arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask() Would that be a good starting point to introduce more generic IPI tracing? Thanks, Wojtek
