[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1216130356.12595.184.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:59:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Hideo AOKI <haoki@...hat.com>,
Takashi Nishiie <t-nishiie@...css.fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/15] Kernel Tracepoints
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 09:25 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra (peterz@...radead.org) wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 10:59 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > +#define __DO_TRACE(tp, proto, args) \
> > > + do { \
> > > + int i; \
> > > + void **funcs; \
> > > + preempt_disable(); \
> > > + funcs = (tp)->funcs; \
> > > + smp_read_barrier_depends(); \
> > > + if (funcs) { \
> > > + for (i = 0; funcs[i]; i++) { \
> >
> > can't you get rid of 'i' and write:
> >
> > void **func;
> >
> > preempt_disable();
> > func = (tp)->funcs;
> > smp_read_barrier_depends();
> > for (; func; func++)
> > ((void (*)(proto))func)(args);
> > preempt_enable();
> >
>
> Yes, I though there would be an optimization to do here, I'll use your
> proposal. This code snippet is especially important since it will
> generate instructions near every tracepoint side. Saving a few bytes
> becomes important.
>
> Given that (tp)->funcs references an array of function pointers and that
> it can be NULL, the if (funcs) test must still be there and we must use
>
> #define __DO_TRACE(tp, proto, args) \
> do { \
> void *func; \
> \
> preempt_disable(); \
> if ((tp)->funcs) { \
> func = rcu_dereference((tp)->funcs); \
> for (; func; func++) { \
> ((void(*)(proto))(func))(args); \
> } \
> } \
> preempt_enable(); \
> } while (0)
>
>
> The resulting assembly is a bit more dense than my previous
> implementation, which is good :
My version also has that if ((tp)->funcs), but its hidden in the
for (; func; func++) loop. The only thing your version does is an extra
test of tp->funcs but without read depends barrier - not sure if that is
ok.
--
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