Jan Kiszka wrote:
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.


Ok.


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),


Yeah, sorry for the delay in answering. That's indeed the way to do it.

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Adeos-main mailing list
Adeos-main@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main


--

Philippe.

Reply via email to