[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904171557060.1016@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:57:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] tracing: move __DO_TRACE out of line
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>
> > Taking __do_trace_sched_switch out of lines inserts this into the
> > hot path (6 instructions, 31 bytes):
> >
> > cmpl $0, __tracepoint_sched_switch+8(%rip) #, __tracepoint_sched_switch.state
> > je .L1748 #,
> > movq -136(%rbp), %rdx # next,
> > movq -144(%rbp), %rsi # prev,
> > movq %rbx, %rdi # rq,
> > call __do_trace_sched_switch #
> > .L1748:
>
> Hm, why isnt this off-line in the function? It's marked unlikely(),
> isnt it?
>
> also, did you investigate the effect on the _instrumented_ function
> itself? (i.e. the non-tracing related bits) A function call clobbers
> various registers and creates pressure on gcc to shuffle registers
> around.
I doubt it will make much difference. The inline version stil has the
function call to the trace point handler.
-- Steve
--
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