Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1735089 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 00/40] tracing: Inter-event (e.g. latency) support

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 00/40] tracing: Inter-event (e.g. latency) support Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-09-19 18:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 00/40] tracing: Inter-event (e.g. latency) support Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> - 2017-09-19 20:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 00/40] tracing: Inter-event (e.g. latency) support Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-09-21 22:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 00/40] tracing: Inter-event (e.g. latency) support Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> - 2017-09-21 23:20 +0200

#1735089 — Re: [PATCH v2 00/40] tracing: Inter-event (e.g. latency) support

On Tue,  5 Sep 2017 16:57:12 -0500
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This is V2 of the inter-event tracing patchset.
> 

Hi Tom,

I was wondering if you had a v3 ready? I would like to get it into the
next merge window, but I would also like it to be in linux-next early,
which means we need the next version rather soon (hopefully that will
be the last version).

-- Steve

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1735156

Hi Steve,

On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 12:31 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue,  5 Sep 2017 16:57:12 -0500
> Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is V2 of the inter-event tracing patchset.
> > 
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> I was wondering if you had a v3 ready? I would like to get it into the
> next merge window, but I would also like it to be in linux-next early,
> which means we need the next version rather soon (hopefully that will
> be the last version).
> 

Yeah, it's almost ready.  At this point, I've addressed all the comments
except for:

 - PATCH v2 25/40] tracing: Add support for dynamic tracepoints

 which I need to do a little bit of research on to figure out what
exactly I need to do there.

I was also kind of looking for a couple patches from you to fold in
which you had mentioned you were going to send for:

 -  [PATCH v2 35/40] tracing: Reverse the order event_mutex/trace_types_lock are taken
 -  [PATCH v2 40/40] tracing: Add trace_event_buffer_reserve() variant that allows recursion

I've been using the trace_recursive_lock() patch you posted in place of
the latter and it's working fine.  :-)

Tom

> -- Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1737049

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:44:28 -0500
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> Yeah, it's almost ready.  At this point, I've addressed all the comments
> except for:
> 
>  - PATCH v2 25/40] tracing: Add support for dynamic tracepoints
> 
>  which I need to do a little bit of research on to figure out what
> exactly I need to do there.

Let me know if you need any help.

> 
> I was also kind of looking for a couple patches from you to fold in
> which you had mentioned you were going to send for:
> 
>  -  [PATCH v2 35/40] tracing: Reverse the order event_mutex/trace_types_lock are taken

OK, I have a stand alone patch that you don't need to fold in that does
this properly. I tested the crap out of it (missed a few places), but
should be good. I'll send that netx.


>  -  [PATCH v2 40/40] tracing: Add trace_event_buffer_reserve() variant that allows recursion

I have this working too, but want to test it a little more before
sending. Once I do, you can add both patches ahead of your series. I
may just apply them to my tree now and start running them through my
formal tests.

> 
> I've been using the trace_recursive_lock() patch you posted in place of
> the latter and it's working fine.  :-)

Thanks!

-- Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1737070

Hi Steve,

On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 16:20 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:44:28 -0500
> Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, it's almost ready.  At this point, I've addressed all the comments
> > except for:
> > 
> >  - PATCH v2 25/40] tracing: Add support for dynamic tracepoints
> > 
> >  which I need to do a little bit of research on to figure out what
> > exactly I need to do there.
> 
> Let me know if you need any help.
> 

OK, thanks.

> > 
> > I was also kind of looking for a couple patches from you to fold in
> > which you had mentioned you were going to send for:
> > 
> >  -  [PATCH v2 35/40] tracing: Reverse the order event_mutex/trace_types_lock are taken
> 
> OK, I have a stand alone patch that you don't need to fold in that does
> this properly. I tested the crap out of it (missed a few places), but
> should be good. I'll send that netx.
> 
> 
> >  -  [PATCH v2 40/40] tracing: Add trace_event_buffer_reserve() variant that allows recursion
> 
> I have this working too, but want to test it a little more before
> sending. Once I do, you can add both patches ahead of your series. I
> may just apply them to my tree now and start running them through my
> formal tests.
> 

Thanks for these patches - testing now with the mutex patch you just
sent and the old trace_recursive_lock() patch, hope to have a v3 out
soon.

Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web