[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240321104939.60c54560@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 10:49:39 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: "Bj\"orn T\"opel" <bjorn@...nel.org>, Puranjay Mohan
<puranjay12@...il.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer
Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Masami
Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Ley Foon Tan <leyfoon.tan@...rfivetech.com>,
Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>, Sia Jee Heng
<jeeheng.sia@...rfivetech.com>, "Bj\"orn T\"opel" <bjorn@...osinc.com>,
Song Shuai <suagrfillet@...il.com>, Cl'ement L'eger <cleger@...osinc.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] riscv: Implement HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_CALL_OPS
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:42:28 +0000
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > It would be interesting to see how the per-call performance would
> > improve on x86 with CALL_OPS! ;-)
>
> Heh. ;)
But this would require adding -fpatchable-function-entry on x86, which
would increase the size of text, which could possibly have a performance
regression when tracing is disabled.
I'd have no problem if someone were to implement it, but there's a strict
requirement that it does not slow down the system when tracing is disabled.
As tracing is a second class citizen compared to the rest of the kernel.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists