[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Wu Zhangjin <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 08/11] tracing: not trace mips_timecounter_init() in MIPS
From: Frederic Weisbecker <>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 22:43:55 +0100
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:received:date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=OgCrKQYn9/oybKjIMgyo8odG+anVCej79+JUffsvlBk=; b=WFwEfg4GHRtMUYjC2sL4T4UY3ksu9WYWylAGb17GOoPRvNwxoPVEgIp6fT5PfxeqYQ CBkEoHfvaryaLaig6sYhFR/zzzZ5kiOL9jrZxQjY0knyaR5Yz8PqNBmY0bVw8pwX83VF BO3dgKvSmcr8jMGwOcm9eLRRcXQ2JYnamaZx4=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=F6wh4sZinmOFvy2YheS+kAVAzANDnMjvIFqg10SQatyZDqepDolyEHYTCCY8efeG7d GqQfspsrpK+biSmcbcm0Sf5amsIJq08/i+rzoFaah8/ViTMi7dFXnu6VGIEVQh0EGjPp kL3OVI476Xboa19AjxzX2zHkfJ3D1orJOd3ls=
In-reply-to: <1256550156.5642.148.camel@falcon>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <1256550156.5642.148.camel@falcon>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 05:42:36PM +0800, Wu Zhangjin wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 01:27 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > 2009/10/25 Wu Zhangjin <>:
> > > -static inline u64 mips_timecounter_read(void)
> > > +static inline u64 notrace mips_timecounter_read(void)
> > 
> > 
> > You don't need to set notrace functions, unless their addresses
> > are referenced somewhere, which unfortunately might happen
> > for some functions but this is rare.
> > 
> Okay, Will remove it.

Oops, a word has escaped from my above sentence. I wanted to say:

"You don't need to set notrace to inline functions" :)

> > Hmm yeah this is not very nice to do that in core functions because
> > of a specific arch problem.
> > At least you have __notrace_funcgraph, this is a notrace
> > that only applies if CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> > so that it's still traceable by the function tracer in this case.
> > 
> > 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
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.

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