[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89i+r-pQGpen1mUhybmj+6ybhxSsuoaB07NFzOWyHUMFDNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 10:20:25 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, dennis@...nel.org,
tj@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com, mark.rutland@....com,
davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7] net/core: Introduce netdev_core_stats_inc()
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 10:14 AM Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
>
> On 2023/10/9 15:53, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 5:07 AM Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >
> >> 'this_cpu_read + this_cpu_write' and 'pr_info + this_cpu_inc' will make
> >> the trace work well.
> >>
> >> They all have 'pop' instructions in them. This may be the key to making
> >> the trace work well.
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I need your help on percpu and ftrace.
> >>
> > I do not think you made sure netdev_core_stats_inc() was never inlined.
> >
> > Adding more code in it is simply changing how the compiler decides to
> > inline or not.
>
>
> Yes, you are right. It needs to add the 'noinline' prefix. The
> disassembly code will have 'pop'
>
> instruction.
>
The function was fine, you do not need anything like push or pop.
The only needed stuff was the call __fentry__.
The fact that the function was inlined for some invocations was the
issue, because the trace point
is only planted in the out of line function.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists