Re: [PATCH] new irq tracer

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

> > the lttng tracepoints wrap the calls to _handle_IRQ_event in 3
> > different places. So the above suggested irq tracepoint provides the
> > same information with 4 less tracepoints in the code. So I believe its
> > simpler - plus we can understand which action handlers are handling the
> > interrupt.
> > 
> 
> 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.

I agree with IRQ latency tracing is very important.
So now, We understand we have another two good requirement.

Therefore, I can agree to Mathieu's separete trace point idea and
Jason's current patch.

Thanks! good discussion.



> 
> But I agree that knowing which handler is called is important.
> 
> How about this compromise :
> 
> trace_irq_entry(irq, action)
>   _handle_IRQ_event()
>     for each action  {
>       trace_irq_handler(action, ret);
>       ret = action->handler(irq, action->dev_id);
>       ...
>     }
> trace_irq_exit(action_ret);
> 
> Would that give you the information you need ?
> 
> Here trace_irq_handler would be passed the _current_ action invoked and
> the _previous_ action return value. Note that we should initialize
> irqreturn_t ret to some initial value if we do this. That should keep
> the tracing overhead minimal.