[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1255469210.7113.2436.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:26:50 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] [PATCH 1/5] function-graph/x86: replace unbalanced
ret with jmp
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 17:21 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > What it was:
> >
> > call function
> > function:
> > call mcount
> > mcount:
> > call ftrace_entry
>
> Can we manage to change this call
Note, that call jumps to C code.
>
> > ftrace_entry:
> > mess up with return code of caller
> > ret
>
> .. and this ret for 2 jmp instructions too ?
The code is all in C, and it too calls functions. Not sure where this
helps out any. The ret here matches their calls. Thus the prediction
will work.
>
> Given that we have no choice but to kill call/ret prediction logic, I
> think it might be good to try to use this logic as little as possible
> (by favoring jmp jmp over call/ret when the return target is invariant).
>
> That's just an idea, benchmarks could prove me right/wrong.
I don't see how this would help. And I'm not about to waste time
experimenting. What's the rational?
-- 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