[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eabacc6f-c7fb-ff33-26d1-271537fb4760@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 11:00:41 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To: Alex Elder <elder@...e.org>
cc: Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@...il.com>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
johan@...nel.org, elder@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: greybus: use inline function for macros
Greg raised the question of whether the inline function is really as
efficient as a macro.
I tried the following definitions:
#define to_gbphy_dev(d) container_of(d, struct gbphy_device, dev)
static inline struct gbphy_device *extra_to_gbphy_dev(const struct device *_dev)
{
return container_of(_dev, struct gbphy_device, dev);
}
And the following uses:
ssize_t macro_protocol_id_show(struct device *dev,
struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
{
struct gbphy_device *gbphy_dev = to_gbphy_dev(dev);
return sprintf(buf, "%c macro 0x%02x\n", *buf, gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id);
}
ssize_t extra_protocol_id_show(struct device *dev,
struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
{
struct gbphy_device *gbphy_dev = extra_to_gbphy_dev(dev);
return sprintf(buf, "extra 0x%02x %c\n", gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id, *buf);
}
They are a little bit different to avoid too much compiler optimization.
After doing make drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.s, I get similar looking
code in both cases:
Macro version:
.type macro_protocol_id_show, @function
macro_protocol_id_show:
endbr64
1: call __fentry__
.section __mcount_loc, "a",@progbits
.quad 1b
.previous
pushq %rbp #
movq %rdx, %rbp # tmp96, buf
pushq %rbx #
# drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:40: {
movq %rdi, %rbx # tmp95, dev
# drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:43: return sprintf(buf, "%c macro 0x%02x\n", *buf, gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id);
call __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc #
# drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:43: return sprintf(buf, "%c macro 0x%02x\n", *buf, gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id);
movq -32(%rbx), %rax # MEM[(struct gbphy_device *)dev_7(D) + -40B].cport_desc, MEM[(struct gbphy_device *)dev_7(D) + -40B].cport_desc
# drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:43: return sprintf(buf, "%c macro 0x%02x\n", *buf, gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id);
movzbl 0(%rbp), %edx # *buf_9(D), *buf_9(D)
movq %rbp, %rdi # buf,
movq $.LC18, %rsi #,
movzbl 3(%rax), %ecx # _1->protocol_id, _1->protocol_id
call sprintf #
# drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:44: }
movl $13, %eax #,
popq %rbx #
popq %rbp #
jmp __x86_return_thunk
.size macro_protocol_id_show, .-macro_protocol_id_show
Function version:
.type extra_protocol_id_show, @function
extra_protocol_id_show:
endbr64
1: call __fentry__
.section __mcount_loc, "a",@progbits
.quad 1b
.previous
pushq %rbp #
movq %rdx, %rbp # tmp96, buf
pushq %rbx #
# drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:47: {
movq %rdi, %rbx # tmp95, dev
# drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:50: return sprintf(buf, "extra 0x%02x %c\n", gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id, *buf);
call __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc #
# drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:50: return sprintf(buf, "extra 0x%02x %c\n", gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id, *buf);
movq -32(%rbx), %rax # MEM[(struct gbphy_device *)dev_8(D) + -40B].cport_desc, MEM[(struct gbphy_device *)dev_8(D) + -40B].cport_desc
# drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:50: return sprintf(buf, "extra 0x%02x %c\n", gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id, *buf);
movzbl 0(%rbp), %ecx # *buf_9(D), *buf_9(D)
movq %rbp, %rdi # buf,
movq $.LC19, %rsi #,
movzbl 3(%rax), %edx # _3->protocol_id, _3->protocol_id
call sprintf #
# drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:51: }
movl $13, %eax #,
popq %rbx #
popq %rbp #
jmp __x86_return_thunk
.size extra_protocol_id_show, .-extra_protocol_id_show
Both seem to access the memory directly. Maybe the example is too simple,
and the compiler is more likely to optimize aggressively?
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists