----- On Mar 6, 2020, at 3:45 PM, rostedt rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 15:22:46 -0500 (EST)
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I agree with the overall approach. Just a bit of nitpicking on the API:
>>
>> I understand that the "prio" argument is a separate argument because it can take
>> many values. However, "rcu" is just a boolean, so I wonder if we should not
>> rather
>> introduce a "int flags" with a bitmask enum, e.g.
>
> I thought about this approach, but thought it was a bit overkill. As the
> kernel doesn't have an internal API, I figured we can switch this over to
> flags when we get another flag to add. Unless you can think of one in the
> near future.
The additional feature I have in mind for near future would be to register
a probe which can take a page fault to a "sleepable" tracepoint. This would
require preemption to be enabled and use of SRCU.
We can always change things when we get there.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
>>
>> int tracepoint_probe_register_prio_flags(struct tracepoint *tp, void *probe,
>> void *data, int prio, int flags)
>>
>> where flags would be populated through OR between labels of this enum:
>>
>> enum tracepoint_flags {
>> TRACEPOINT_FLAG_RCU = (1U << 0),
>> };
>>
>> We can then be future-proof for additional flags without ending up calling e.g.
>>
>> tracepoint_probe_register_featurea_featureb_featurec(tp, probe, data, 0, 1, 0,
>> 1)
>
> No, as soon as there is another boolean to add, the rcu version would be
> switched to flags. I even thought about making the rcu and prio into one,
> and change prio to be a SHRT_MAX max, and have the other 16 bits be for
> flags.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
>>
> > which seems rather error-prone and less readable than a set of flags.
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
