On 03.09.19 17:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.09.2019 17:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 03.09.19 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.08.2019 12:18, Juergen Gross wrote:
In order to have unique names when doing lock profiling several local
locks "lock" need to be renamed.
But these are all named simply "lock" for a good reason, including
because they're all function scope symbols (and typically the
functions are all sufficiently short). The issue stems from the
dual use of "name" in
#define _LOCK_PROFILE(name) { 0, #name, &name, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
so I'd rather suggest making this a derivation of a new
#define _LOCK_PROFILE_NAME(lock, name) { 0, #name, &lock, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
if there's no other (transparent) way of disambiguating the names.
This will require to use a different DEFINE_SPINLOCK() variant, so e.g.
DEFINE_SPINLOCK_LOCAL(), which will then include the needed "static" and
add "@<func>" to the lock profiling name. Is this okay?
To be frank - not really. I dislike both, and would hence prefer to
stick to what there is currently, until someone invents a transparent
way to disambiguate these. I'm sorry for being unhelpful here.
I think I have found a way: I could add __FILE__ and __LINE__ data to
struct lock_profile. In lock_prof_init() I could look for non-unique
lock names and mark those to be printed with the __FILE__ and __LINE__
data added to the names.
Would you be fine with this approach?
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
