[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1199317743.2438.8.camel@entropy>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:49:03 -0800
From: Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"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
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 11:33 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:47:34PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > [...]
> > > FWIW, I'm not keen about the format strings either, but they don't
> > > constitute a performance hit beyond an additional parameter. It does
> > > not need to actually get parsed at run time.
> >
> > "only" an additional parameter. The whole _point_ behind these markers
> > is for them to have minimal effect!
>
> Agreed. The only alternative I recall seeing proposed was my own
> cartesian-product macro suite that encodes parameter types into the
> marker function/macro name itself. (Maybe some of that could be
> hidden with gcc typeof() magic.) There appeared to be a consensus
> that this was more undesirable. Do you agree?
>
>
C++ name mangling would be extremely useful here.
Actually, why isn't the DWARF information for the functions sufficient?
--
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>
--
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