[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287527005.16971.527.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:23:25 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Koki Sanagi <sanagi.koki@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
nhorman@...driver.com, scott.a.mcmillan@...el.com,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Cleanup the convoluted softirq tracepoints
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 14:48 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 02:23 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > But it seemed that gcc for you inlined the code in the wrong spot.
> > Perhaps it's not a good idea to have the something like h - softirq_vec
> > in the parameter of the tracepoint. Not saying that your change is not
> > worth it. It is, because h - softirq_vec is used by others now too.
> >
>
> OK, first of all, there are some serious WTFs here:
>
> # define JUMP_LABEL_INITIAL_NOP ".byte 0xe9 \n\t .long 0\n\t"
>
> A jump instruction is one of the worst possible NOPs. Why are we doing
> this?
Good question. Safety? Jason?
This is the initial jumps and are converted on boot up to a better nop.
>
> The second thing that I found when implementing static_cpu_has() was
> that it is actually better to encapsulate the asm goto in a small inline
> which returns bool (true/false) -- gcc will happily optimize out the
> variable and only see it as a flow of control thing. I would be very
> curious if that wouldn't make gcc generate better code in cases like that.
>
> gcc 4.5.0 has a bug in that there must be a flowthrough case in the asm
> goto (you can't have it unconditionally branch one way or the other), so
> that should be the likely case and accordingly it should be annotated
> likely() so that gcc doesn't reorder. I suspect in the end one ends up
> with code like this:
>
> static __always_inline __pure bool __switch_point(...)
> {
> asm goto("1: " JUMP_LABEL_INITIAL_NOP
> /* ... patching stuff */
> : : : : t_jump);
> return false;
> t_jump:
> return true;
> }
>
> #define SWITCH_POINT(x) unlikely(__switch_point(x))
>
> I *suspect* this will resolve the need for hot/cold labels just fine.
Interesting, we could try this.
Thanks!
-- 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