[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120424234513.GA11841@leaf>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:45:14 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: Minho Ban <mhban@...sung.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Prevent wasting time to find out get_parent_ip
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 08:31:24AM +0900, Minho Ban wrote:
> On 04/24/2012 09:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 21:36 +0900, Minho Ban wrote:
> >> trace_preempt_on/off looks empty if PREEMPT_TRACER is off. But actually it is
> >> spending time to find out get_parent_ip(even CALLER_ADDR for some ARCH) which is
> >> in argument. This seems not fair for those who expect to do nothing but increase
> >> or decrease count.
> >
> > You can do the same by making them CPP macros and adding a comment as to
> > why they're macros instead of inlines..
> >
>
> Thank you for pointing this out, certainly macros look better. I'll amend this.
As an alternative, how about making get_parent_ip and its called
functions static inlines? Then the compiler can eliminate them via dead
code elimination.
Or, how about declaring get_parent_ip with the GCC "pure" attribute?
That would tell GCC that it can safely eliminate calls to the function.
- Josh Triplett
--
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