Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] perf: Take a hot regs snapshot for trace events

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Mar 04 2010 - 10:01:31 EST

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 12:07 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > oops, my bad :-), I thought this was in the x86 arch directory. For the
> > University, I was helping them with adding trace points for page faults
> > when I came across this in arch/x86/mm/fault.c:
> >
> > perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, 0, regs, address);
> >
> >
> > This is what I actually was wondering about. Why is it a "perf only" trace
> > point instead of a TRACE_EVENT()?
> Because I wanted to make perf usable without having to rely on funny
> tracepoints. That is, I am less worried about committing software counters
> to ABI than I am about TRACE_EVENT(), which still gives me a terribly
> uncomfortable feeling.

I'd still like a much less error-prone and work-intense way of doing it.

I'd suggest we simply add a TRACE_EVENT_ABI() for such cases, where we really
want to expose a tracepoint to tooling, programmatically. Maybe even change
the usage sites to trace_foo_ABI(), to make it really clear and to make people
aware of the consequences.

> Also, building with all CONFIG_TRACE_*=n will still yield a usable perf,
> which is something the embedded people might fancy, all that TRACE stuff
> adds lots of code.

Not a real issue i suspect when you do lock profiling ...

Or if it is, some debloating might be in order - and the detaching of event
enumeration and ftrace TRACE_EVENT infrastructure from other ftrace bits. (i
suggested an '/eventfs' special filesystem before, for nicely layed out
hierarchy of ftrace/perf events.)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at