[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090520003314.GA8790@Krystal>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 20:33:14 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
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
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
>
> [ 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.
>
Given the tradeoff is taste vs overhead, what do you think of the
following proposal ?
trace(block_bio_complete, md->queue, bio);
?
I'm thinking that it may just be the "tracepoint_call" name that's a bit
too verbose for its own good.
Mathieu
> 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
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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