[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51FFF430.1060701@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 11:51:28 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gcc <gcc@....gnu.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.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 08/05/2013 11:49 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 11:29 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> Traps nest, that's why there is a stack. (OK, so you don't want to take
>> the same trap inside the trap handler, but that code should be very
>> limited.) The trap instruction just becomes very short, but rather
>> slow, call-return.
>>
>> However, when you consider the cost you have to consider that the
>> tracepoint is doing other work, so it may very well amortize out.
>
> Also, how would you pass the parameters? Every tracepoint has its own
> parameters to pass to it. How would a trap know what where to get "prev"
> and "next"?
>
How do you do that now?
You have to do an IP lookup to find out what you are doing.
(Note: I wonder how much the parameter generation costs the tracepoints.)
-hpa
--
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