[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <477D0BC6.2060204@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:22:30 +0100
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] move WARN_ON() out of line
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>> +#define WARN_ON(condition) do_warn_on((unsigned long)(condition), __FILE__, \
>> + __LINE__, __FUNCTION__)
>
> hm. This passes in 4 arguments to do_warn_on().
>
> i think we could get away with no arguments (!), by using section
> tricks. Firstly, we can get rid of __FUNCTION__ and replace it with a
> ksyms lookup - that is fine enough.
I can see that; I'll play with that
> Secondly, we could put __FILE__ and
> __LINE__ into a text section and key it up to the return address from
> do_warn_on().
the asm generated for this is 2 movl instructions for immediate to register.
Doing fancy tricks ... it may well end up bigger and gain nothing.
>
> the condition code should not be passed in at all i think - it creates
> extra function calls to do_warn_on() all the time.
function calls are *CHEAP*.
passing the condition is actually near free (remember we have regparm!), it's likely to be
in a register already anyway.
Doing the test inline makes stuff bigger, and also spreads the branch prediction pain around
rather than having one nicely predictable place...
--
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