> > > > +DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(irq_vector, > > > > + > > > > + TP_PROTO(int irq), > > > > + > > > > + TP_ARGS(irq), > > > > + > > > > + TP_STRUCT__entry( > > > > + __field( int, irq ) > > Shouldn't this be vector? >
Ok. I will change it to vector. > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, nmi_entry, DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, > > > > +nmi_exit, DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, local_timer_entry, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, local_timer_exit, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, reschedule_entry, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, reschedule_exit, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, call_function_entry, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, call_function_exit, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, call_function_single_entry, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, call_function_single_exit, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, irq_work_entry, DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, > > > > +irq_work_exit, DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, invalidate_tlb_entry, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, invalidate_tlb_exit, > > So this set is pretty generic and applicable across architectures. Good. > Thanks. > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, error_apic_entry, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, error_apic_exit, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, thermal_apic_entry, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, thermal_apic_exit, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, threshold_apic_entry, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, threshold_apic_exit, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, spurious_apic_entry, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, spurious_apic_exit, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, x86_platform_ipi_entry, > > > > +DEFINE_EVENT(irq_vector, x86_platform_ipi_exit, > > That part is x86 specific. If we go that route, we'll end up with gazillions > of arch specific vectors sooner than later. > > Either we find better and more widely applicable names for them, if there are > similar functionalities on other architectures available, > or I'm not familiar with other architectures... >we should have a single generic tracepoint for those which cannot be be mapped >to anything useful shared across architectures. > > Those x86 specific ones are not really frequently raised vectors, so enabling > them all won't affect performance and readability of the > traces too much. OK. I will unify these to a single tracepoint. "x86_irq_vector" or so? Seiji -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
