From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755958AbdIHOSc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:18:32 -0400
Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:53938 "EHLO mga01.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1755880AbdIHOS3 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:18:29 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,361,1500966000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="309495692"
Message-ID: <1504880307.13310.15.camel@tzanussi-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 25/40] tracing: Add support for dynamic tracepoints
From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mhiramat@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org,
        vedang.patel@intel.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, joel.opensrc@gmail.com,
        joelaf@google.com, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        baohong.liu@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 09:18:27 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20170907180226.1497e96c@gandalf.local.home>
References: <cover.1504642143.git.tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
         <9f89af4588c84850a58edcf72d2591ba78906c30.1504642143.git.tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
         <20170907180226.1497e96c@gandalf.local.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-4.fc20) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Steve,

On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 18:02 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue,  5 Sep 2017 16:57:37 -0500
> Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > The tracepoint infrastructure assumes statically-defined tracepoints
> > and uses static_keys for tracepoint enablement.  In order to define
> > tracepoints on the fly, we need to have a dynamic counterpart.
> 
> Do we?
> 
> I believe the static keys should work just fine if you don't have any
> defined static keys jumps, and they should work as a simple counter.
> 
> Could we do that instead of adding another variable to a structure that
> is defined over a thousand times? Save us 4k of memory.
> 

OK, yeah, makes sense if possible - let me look into that... 

Tom