[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwRHpL-3YObZfw6NxxDxMqQbiwp0=NnpotGj2RHDNF3iw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:20:29 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gcc <gcc@....gnu.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
Behan Webster <behanw@...verseincode.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC] gcc feature request: Moving blocks into sections
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> My main concern is with tracepoints. Which on 90% (or more) of systems
> running Linux, is completely off, and basically just dead code, until
> someone wants to see what's happening and enables them.
The static_key_false() approach with minimal inlining sounds like a
much better approach overall. Sure, it might add a call/ret, but it
adds it to just the unlikely tracepoint taken path.
Of course, it would be good to optimize static_key_false() itself -
right now those static key jumps are always five bytes, and while they
get nopped out, it would still be nice if there was some way to have
just a two-byte nop (turning into a short branch) *if* we can reach
another jump that way..For small functions that would be lovely. Oh
well.
Linus
--
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