Re: [PATCH 1/2] ftrace: Add separate handler for ftrace:function event

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:50:57 +0100
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > This seems redundant. I never understood the control_ops that perf uses
> > in the function tracing infrastructure. Why can't you just register the
> > event->ops and have that ops set the filtering? Then the ftrace
> > infrastructure will only call that event handler for the functions its
> > filtered on. Then you don't need to do it again. Right now ftrace
> > already does that with the generic "control_ops" that perf uses, but
> > now you are doing it again. Seems rather pointless.  
> 
> well thats exactly what we are doing.. but as all ops
> share single callback we need to find the proper event
> this callback was triggered for

The ftrace_ops has a "private" field for the user to set. Could you
make that point back to the event that allocated the ftrace_ops?
Then the callback function could easily get the event that matches the
ftrace_ops.

> 
> currently we use tracepoint callback (perf_tp_event)
> where the proper event is found based on the event->filter
> 
> however this is not the case for ftrace:function because
> filter will not change the event->filter, but the ops filter

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out the paths here. I would love to remove
the control_ops as that complicates the function tracing code a bit
more than I would like it to be.

I just crashed function tracing by function tracing perf doing function
tracing :-) I'm currently debugging that (and adding more code to help
debug things like this).

-- 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/