Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: x86/smp: adding new trace points
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
References: <4d54953b-f968-63f5-569f-9e09bc0f361c@gmail.com>
 <b638ef03-04c2-94bf-f026-a01691888624@gmail.com>
 <87y2pw2fav.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <b3e3c317-17e4-081f-0bb6-3e6f291f8b86@gmail.com>
 <87sgg323bf.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Wojciech Kudla <wk.kernel@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56b36edb-1ff8-a154-d3c5-d2304e3554c0@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 19:42:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87sgg323bf.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 13/05/2020 17:43, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Wojciech Kudla <wk.kernel@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 13/05/2020 13:24, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>>> Why would the SMP call function single interrupt go through the
>>> PLATFORM_IPI_VECTOR? It goes as the name says through the
>>> CALL_FUNCTION_SINGLE_VECTOR.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong vector, my bad.
>>
>> However 2) still stands in my opinion. We don't have "ipi raise" trace
>> point for x86.  RESCHEDULE_VECTOR, CALL_FUNCTION_SINGLE_VECTOR, as
>> well as TLB invalidation vectors are essentially
>> inter-processor-interrupts if I'm not mistaken.  Would a patch adding
>> such trace point be considered here?
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> Though that IPI tracing is inconsistent across architectures. I'm not
> really interested to have yet another x86 variant which is slightly
> different than anything else.
> 
> ARM and ARM64 share generic tracepoints for that, though the actual
> tracepoint invocation is in the architecture specific code.
> 
> If at all we really want to have the common IPIs which are required for
> SMP support covered by generic tracepoints and have them in the generic
> code and not sprinkled all over arch/*

How about we add ipi:ipi_raise trace points before:
- arch_send_call_function_single_ipi(), and 
- arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask()

Would that be a good starting point to introduce more generic IPI tracing?

Thanks,
Wojtek