[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b2976966-8c48-2798-b2d6-cf7be45ed25f@akamai.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 20:27:09 -0400
From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] various dynamic_debug patches
On 09/19/2018 06:04 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> This started as an experiment to see how hard it would be to change
> the four pointers in struct _ddebug into relative offsets, a la
> CONFIG_GENERIC_BUG_RELATIVE_POINTERS, thus saving 16 bytes per
> pr_debug site (and thus exactly making up for the extra space used by
> the introduction of jump labels in 9049fc74). I stumbled on a few
> things that are probably worth fixing regardless of whether the latter
> half of this series is deemed worthwhile.
>
> Patch relationships: 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 15-16 can be applied
> individually, though 2, 4 and 6 probably makes most sense in the
> context of the final goal of the series.
>
> 7-12 I believe make sense on their own. Patch 13 again only makes
> sense if we go all the way, and 14 and 17 depend on 13.
>
> 18-21 are more preparatory patches, and finally 22 switch over x86-64
> to use CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG_RELATIVE_POINTERS. I've tested that the
> end result boots under virtme and that the dynamic_debug control file
> has the expected contents.
>
I would like to to see all these patches included. Feel free to add:
Acked-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
I've been wanting to add DYNAMIC_DEBUG_BRANCH to the
[dev,net,pr].*ratelimited functions. That should reduce the size of the
text as well.
Thanks,
-Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists