On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 3:07 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 14:55:27 -0700
> Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > This looks a littl ugly ;-/ Maybe we can rename __down_common() to
> > > > ___down_common() and implement __down_common() as:
> > > >
> > > > static inline int __sched __down_common(...)
> > > > {
> > > > int ret;
> > > > trace_contention_begin(sem, 0);
> > > > ret = ___down_common(...);
> > > > trace_contention_end(sem, ret);
> > > > return ret;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Yeah, that works, except I think he wants a few extra
> > > __set_current_state()'s like so:
> >
> > Not anymore, I decided not to because of noise in the task state.
> >
> > Also I'm considering two tracepoints for the return path to reduce
> > the buffer size as Mathieu suggested. Normally it'd return with 0
> > so we can ignore it in the contention_end. For non-zero cases,
> > we can add a new tracepoint to save the return value.
>
> I don't think you need two tracepoints, but one that you can override.
>
> We have eprobes that let you create a trace event on top of a current trace
> event that can limit or extend what is traced in the buffer.
>
> And I also have custom events that can be placed on top of any existing
> tracepoint that has full access to what is sent into the tracepoint on not
> just what is available to the trace event:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220312232551.181178712@xxxxxxxxxxx/
Thanks for the info. But it's unclear to me if it provides the custom
event with the same or different name. Can I use both of the original
and the custom events at the same time?
Thanks,
Namhyung
