Re: [PATCH] new irq tracer

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > The main thing I dislike about only tracing action->handler() calls is
> > > that you are not tracing an IRQ per se, but rather the invocation of a
> > > given handler within the interrupt. For instance, it would be difficult
> > > to calculate the maximum interrupt latency for a given interrupt line,
> > > because you don't have the "real" irq entry/exit events, just the
> > > individual handler() calls.
> > 
> > Then use the function_graph tracer.
> > 
> 
> Sadly, the function tracer cannot be enabled on production systems.
> Therefore it's not a usable solution in the context where I need this.

And why not? It has zero overhead when disabled.

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/