Re: [PATCH 0/3] tracing: more list_empty(perf_events) checks

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:46 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/17, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 22:18 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 06/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS()->perf_trace_##call() is not trivial because
> > > > of __perf_task()
> > >
> > > Perhaps we can do something like below?
> >
> > Did this actually compile for you?
> 
> Why did you ask?
> 
> Perhaps you are trying to say that this patch needs more work...
> 
> Just because it can't be compiled? Pedant.

No, just because when I first looked at it, I didn't think it would, and
didn't delete this when I took a deeper look.

> 
> > > @@ -659,13 +665,12 @@ perf_trace_##call(void *__data, proto)					\
> > >  	int __data_size;						\
> > >  	int rctx;							\
> > >  									\
> > > -	perf_fetch_caller_regs(&__regs);				\
> > > -									\
> > >  	__data_size = ftrace_get_offsets_##call(&__data_offsets, args); \
> >
> > OK, so here the task gets assigned the val, and so does count.
> >
> > This may not be a bad approach, but instead of having TP_perf_arg() in
> > events/sched.h, keep the TP_perf_task() and TP_perf_count(), and have
> > whatever is put there assigned.
> 
> Or this, yes.
> 
> OK. Let me try to make something working. At least, something I believe
> should work, I will mostly rely on your review anyway.

Great,

-- 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/