[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <337584634.26921.1650378945485.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:35:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
linux-trace-devel <linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] tracing/user_events: Use bits vs bytes for enabled
status page data
----- On Apr 1, 2022, at 7:43 PM, Beau Belgrave beaub@...ux.microsoft.com wrote:
> User processes may require many events and when they do the cache
> performance of a byte index status check is less ideal than a bit index.
> The previous event limit per-page was 4096, the new limit is 32,768.
>
> This change adds a mask property to the user_reg struct. Programs check
> that the byte at status_index has a bit set by ANDing the status_mask.
>
> Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/2059213643.196683.1648499088753.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com/
>
> Suggested-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
> Signed-off-by: Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>
Hi Beau,
Considering this will be used in a fast-path, why choose bytewise
loads for the byte at status_index and the status_mask ?
I'm concerned about the performance penalty associated with partial
register stalls when working with bytewise ALU operations rather than
operations using the entire registers.
Ideally I would be tempted to use "unsigned long" type (32-bit on 32-bit
binaries and 64-bit on 64-bit binaries) for both the array access
and the status mask, but this brings extra complexity for 32-bit compat
handling.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists