> On May 25, 2023, at 7:28 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 25 May 2023 14:00:39 -0700 > Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> From: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Functions that are marked as "inline" are currently also not tracable. >> This limits tracing functionality for many functions for no reason. >> Apparently, this has been done for two reasons. >> >> First, as described in commit 5963e317b1e9d2a ("ftrace/x86: Do not >> change stacks in DEBUG when calling lockdep"), it was intended to >> prevent some functions that cannot be traced from being traced as these >> functions were marked as inline (among others). >> >> Yet, this change has been done a decade ago, and according to Steven >> Rostedt, ftrace should have improved and hopefully resolved nested >> tracing issues by now. Arguably, if functions that should be traced - >> for instance since they are used during tracing - still exist, they >> should be marked as notrace explicitly. >> >> The second reason, which Steven raised, is that attaching "notrace" to >> "inline" prevented tracing differences between different configs, which >> caused various problem. This consideration is not very strong, and tying >> "inline" and "notrace" does not seem very beneficial. The "inline" >> keyword is just a hint, and many functions are currently not tracable >> due to this reason. >> >> Disconnect "inline" from "notrace". > > FYI, I have a patch queued (still needs to go through testing) that > already does this ;-) > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230502164102.1a51cdb4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Ugh. If you cc’d me, I wouldn’t bother you during your vacation. :) I think you may like the first patch in my series to precede this patch though as some of the function I marked as “notrace" are currently “inline”. Let me know how you want to proceed, so I would know how to break this series.
![]() |