[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905191826031.7816@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 18:36:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, jiayingz@...gle.com,
mbligh@...gle.com, roland@...hat.com,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] tracepoints: delay argument evaluation
[ added Christoph ]
On Tue, 19 May 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Jason Baron (jbaron@...hat.com) wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > After disassembling some of the tracepoints, I've noticed that arguments that
> > are passed as macros or that perform dereferences, evaluate prior to the
> > tracepoint on/off check. This means that we are needlessly impacting the
> > off case.
> >
> > I am proposing to fix this by adding a macro that first checks for on/off and
> > then calls 'trace_##name', preserving type checking. Thus, callsites have to
> > move from:
> >
> > trace_block_bio_complete(md->queue, bio);
> >
> > to:
> >
> > tracepoint_call(block_bio_complete, md->queue, bio);
> >
>
> I knew this limitation in the first place, but decided it was not worth
> uglifying the tracepoint call site for it.
>
> The expected use is to pass a pointer or a value as tracepoint argument
> and dereference it in the callback attached to it.
>
> Is there any _real_ added value for going through this API change pain ?
>
I agree with Mathieu that I don't think we want to "uglify" the callers.
But I also agree with Jason that we must not add any overhead to the "off"
state when we can avoid it.
If it comes down to the two, I would lean towards the "uglify" if it shows
performance benefits in the "off" case.
Perhaps I'll try to see if I can fool CPP to getting both worlds. But this
will be tricky :-/
When are we going to get our own C pre-processor?
-- 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