Re: [PATCH 3/4] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: log RPMH requests in FTRACE

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Steven,

On Thu, Jan 18 2018 at 01:26 +0000, Steven Rostedt wrote:

I wasn't Cc'd on the rest of the patches and this wasn't Cc'd to LKML,
and I'm not on any of the mailing lists that were Cc'd, I gotta just
look at what I have here in this patch.

I am so sorry. Will add LKML in the future.


On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:01:56 -0700
Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


@@ -325,6 +328,8 @@ static irqreturn_t tcs_irq_handler(int irq, void *p)
 			}
 		}

+		trace_rpmh_notify_irq(drv->name, m, resp->msg->payload[0].addr,
+						resp->err);

Below, m came from resp->m, is it the same here?

Yes, they will be the same.

 		write_tcs_reg(base, RSC_DRV_CMD_ENABLE, m, 0, 0);
 		write_tcs_reg(base, RSC_DRV_IRQ_CLEAR, 0, 0, BIT(m));
 		atomic_set(&drv->tcs_in_use[m], 0);
@@ -351,7 +356,8 @@ static void tcs_notify_tx_done(unsigned long data)
 	struct rsc_drv *drv = (struct rsc_drv *)data;
 	struct tcs_response *resp;
 	unsigned long flags;
-	int err;
+	int err, m;
+	struct tcs_mbox_msg *msg;

 	do {
 		spin_lock_irqsave(&drv->drv_lock, flags);
@@ -364,7 +370,10 @@ static void tcs_notify_tx_done(unsigned long data)
 		list_del(&resp->list);
 		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&drv->drv_lock, flags);
 		err = resp->err;
+		m = resp->m;
+		msg = resp->msg;
 		free_response(resp);
+		trace_rpmh_notify(drv->name, m, msg->payload[0].addr, err);

The reason I ask, is that this is causing more code to be executed
even when tracing is off. What about passing in resp and assigning it
within the tracepoint.

	trace_rpmh_notify(drv->name, resp);

The free_response(resp) will free the resp object and accessing resp->m
is invalid after that.

That would keep extra code from being used within the normal code path
and only executed in the tracepoint. Get rid of the m = resp->m,
msg = resp->msg.

Even if m is something different above, you can still just pass in:

	trace_rpmh_notify(drv->name, m, resp);


 	} while (1);
 }
May be I can just move the free_response() afer the
trace_rpmh_notify().


@@ -393,6 +402,8 @@ static void __tcs_buffer_write(struct rsc_drv *drv, int m, int n,
 		write_tcs_reg(base, RSC_DRV_CMD_MSGID, m, n + i, msgid);
 		write_tcs_reg(base, RSC_DRV_CMD_ADDR, m, n + i, cmd->addr);
 		write_tcs_reg(base, RSC_DRV_CMD_DATA, m, n + i, cmd->data);
+		trace_rpmh_send_msg(drv->name, m, n + i, msgid, cmd->addr,
+						cmd->data, cmd->complete);

Here just pass in cmd. The less the parameters of a tracepoints, the
more likely gcc wont leak code that would be executed when tracing is
off.

OK.

+#include <linux/tracepoint.h>
+
+DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(rpmh_ack_recvd,
+
+	TP_PROTO(const char *s, int m, u32 addr, int errno),
+
+	TP_ARGS(s, m, addr, errno),

Then we could just do:

	TP_PROTO(const char *s, struct tcs_response *resp),

	TP_ARGS(s, resp),

Nice. Will use this.

+
+	TP_STRUCT__entry(
+		__field(const char *, name)
+		__field(int, m)
+		__field(u32, addr)
+		__field(int, errno)
+	),
+
+	TP_fast_assign(
+		__entry->name = s;
+		__entry->m = m;
+		__entry->addr = addr;
+		__entry->errno = errno;

	__entry->m = resp->m;
	__entry->addr = resp->msg->payload[0].addr;
	__entry->errno = resp->err;

-- Steve

Thanks for the review.

-- Lina
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux