[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH -v5 08/11] tracing: not trace mips_timecounter_init() in MIPS

To: Frederic Weisbecker <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 08/11] tracing: not trace mips_timecounter_init() in MIPS
From: Wu Zhangjin <>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:31:12 +0800
Cc:,,, Thomas Gleixner <>, Ralf Baechle <>, Nicholas Mc Guire <>, Richard Sandiford <>, David Daney <>, Adam Nemet <>, Patrik Kluba <>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc :in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZZtmepn9OjbKt9mYF7FBvdPTkpGa35jDEuY/CNrI3ro=; b=lGLAhtuCGlX1hQEa2MATNGxNzAn97ZhmHJVXoOM67XzLjs2w4fyLw9upNp6tCXgn1w I1qfHZyd1TXKUY+UrHiLHV/pZxYUFqeCSaxR1wNEq8ED1B//F8I2TlB/ExOIxdnYe2ke PiAICDj5AXg9WjfuOJ+njXoTGQBctogilhoIM=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type :organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer :content-transfer-encoding; b=KZOCoXJKzjS/BkWIQx2FkoRPdr1l9RGVWlpKKd55YEbQtMMRs7xaqG49nig0shxONy podjKHX7xvqG+ZaXMcu6JSRGN3k+9WPVvcniQKw/eobpvqqn4VfrjzxaWVIw6hBVN4dq Dv1oYPtrfwSxB2xyPci/V1+xLK1/1B+3v9CB4=
In-reply-to: <20091102214351.GI4880@nowhere>
Organization: DSLab, Lanzhou University, China
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <1256550156.5642.148.camel@falcon> <20091102214351.GI4880@nowhere>

On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 22:43 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > 
> > > But I would rather see a __mips_notrace on these two core functions.
> > 
> > What about this: __arch_notrace? If the arch need this, define it,
> > otherwise, ignore it! if only graph tracer need it, define it in "#ifdef
> The problem is that archs may want to disable tracing on different
> places.
> For example mips wants to disable tracing in timecounter_read_delta,
> but another arch may want to disable tracing somewhere else.
> We'll then have several unrelated __arch_notrace. One that is relevant
> for mips, another that is relevant for arch_foo, but all of them will
> apply for all arch that have defined a __arch_notrace.
> It's true that __mips_notrace is not very elegant as it looks like
> a specific arch annotation intruder.
> But at least that gives us a per arch filter granularity.
> If only static ftrace could disappear, we could keep only dynamic
> ftrace and we would then be able to filter dynamically.
> But I'm not sure it's a good idea for archs integration.

I think if we use something like __mips_notrace here, we may get lots of
__ARCH_notraces here too, 'Cause some other platforms(at least, as I
know, Microblaze will do it too) may also need to add one here, it will

__mips_notrace __ARCH1_notrace __ARCH2_notrace .... foo() {...}

A little ugly ;)

and If a new platform need it's __ARCH_notrace, they need to touch the
common part of ftrace, more side-effects!

but with __arch_notrace, the archs only need to touch it's own part,
Although there is a side-effect as you mentioned above ;)

So, what should we do?

        Wu Zhangjin

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>