[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091022210950.GA10041@nowhere>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:09:52 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Adam Nemet <anemet@...iumnetworks.com>,
David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>, wuzhangjin@...il.com,
Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@...glemail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 4/9] tracing: add static function tracer support
for MIPS
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 04:52:06PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 13:30 -0700, Adam Nemet wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of performance, -pg also affects the instruction scheduling freedom
> > of the compiler in the prologue. With profiling, we limit optimizations not
> > to move instructions in and out of the prologue.
> >
> > Also note that for functions invoked via tail call you won't get an exit
> > event. E.g. if bar is tail-called from foo:
> >
> > foo entered
> > bar entered
> > foo/bar exited
> >
> > However, this is not MIPS-specific and you can always disable tail calls
> > with -fno-optimize-sibling-calls.
Ouch..
> The question is, would bar have a _mcount call? So far, we have not had
> any issues with this on either x86 nor PPC.
Nothing would prevent that I guess. I mean, we are doing a very specific
use of -pg, and common uses wouldn't require to disable the mcount call on
bar in this situation, so it's not something that -pg is supposed to care
about.
> /me knocks on wood.
Me too (but not so hard...)
--
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