Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 
>> Hi again,
>>
>> here comes the first update of the new latency tracer.
>>
>>  arch/i386/kernel/entry.S      |   27 +++
> 
> 
> Is there any good reason to patch the callers of __ipipe_handle_irq
> instead of instrumenting the callee directly?
> 

To capture the invocation delay of __ipipe_handle_irq itself.

>>  arch/i386/kernel/ipipe-root.c |    4
>>  include/asm-i386/system.h     |   70 +++++++++
>>  include/linux/ipipe_trace.h   |    3
>>  kernel/ipipe/Kconfig          |   18 ++
>>  kernel/ipipe/tracer.c         |  247 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>  6 files changed, 288 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> 

Meanwhile I found a solution for the described unterminated trace (put
an explicite trace_end at the end of __ipipe_unstall_iret_root),
included the irq number in the begin/end report, and stumbled over some
other remaining unterminated trace on a different machine. So, no need
to hurry with the merge (not the review! ;) ), I will publish a second
revision first.

Jan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to