[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080102170157.GA11161@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:01:57 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc: "K. Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
dipankar@...ibm.com, ego@...ibm.com, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Markers Implementation for Preempt RCU Boost
Tracing
* Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@...hat.com> wrote:
> > [...] this is a general policy matter. It is _so much easier_ to add
> > markers if they _can_ have near-zero overhead (as in 1-2
> > instructions). Otherwise we'll keep arguing about it, especially if
> > any is added to performance-critical codepath. (where we are
> > counting instructions)
>
> The effect of the immediate-values patch, combined with gcc
> CFLAGS+=-freorder-blocks, *is* to keep the overhead at 1-2
> dcache-impact-free instructions. The register saves, parameter
> evaluation, the function call, can all be moved out of line.
well, -freorder-blocks seems to be default-enabled at -O2 on gcc 4.2, so
we should already be getting that, right?
There's one thing that would make out-of-line tracepoints have a lot
less objectionable to me: right now the 'out of line' area is put to the
end of functions. That splinters the kernel image with inactive, rarely
taken areas of code - blowing up its icache footprint considerably. For
example sched.o has ~100 functions, with the average function size being
200 bytes. At 64 bytes L1 cacheline size that's a 10-20% icache waste
already.
It's true that keeping the off-site code within the function keeps total
codesize slightly smaller, because the offsets (and hence the
conditional jumps) are thus 8 bit - but that's below 1% and the
cache-blow-up aspect is more severe in practice at 10-20%.
So it would be nice if we could collect all this offline code and stuff
it away into another portion of the kernel image. (or, into another
portion of the object file - which would still be good enough in
practice)
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists