[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091119195015.GA25185@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:50:15 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
feng.tang@...el.com, Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, jakub@...hat.com,
gcc@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 19:47 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Admittedly, anybody who compiles with -pg probably doesn't care deeply
> > > about smaller and more efficient code, since the mcount call overhead
> > > tends to make the thing moot anyway, but it really looks like a
> > > win-win situation to just fix the mcount call sequence regardless.
> >
> > Just a sidenote: due to dyn-ftrace, which patches out all mcounts during
> > bootup to be NOPs (and opt-in patches them in again if someone runs the
> > function tracer), the cost is not as large as one would have it with say
> > -pg based user-space profiling.
> >
> > It's not completely zero-cost as the pure NOPs balloon the i$ footprint
> > a bit and GCC generates different code too in some cases. But it's
> > certainly good enough that it's generally pretty hard to prove overhead
> > via micro or macro benchmarks that the patched out mcounts call sites
> > are there.
>
> And frame pointers do add a little overhead as well. Too bad the mcount
> ABI wasn't something like this:
>
>
> <function>:
> call mcount
> [...]
>
> This way, the function address for mcount would have been (%esp) and
> the parent address would be 4(%esp). Mcount would work without frame
> pointers and this whole mess would also become moot.
In that case we could also fix up static callsites to this address as
well (to jump +5 bytes into the function) and avoid the NOP as well in
most cases. (That would in essence merge any slow-path function epilogue
with the mcount cal instruction in terms of I$ footprint - i.e. it would
be an even lower overhead feature.)
If only the kernel had its own compiler.
Ingo
--
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