From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:03:39 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] value of "__attribute__((no_instrument_function))"?? Message-Id: <20070119190339.GC22466@us.ibm.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On 19.01.2007 [03:09:07 -0500], Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > i just noticed that there are a *very* small number of routines in > the source tree tagged with the attribute of "no_instrument_function". > > $ grep -rw no_instrument_function . > ./net/rxrpc/main.c:__attribute__((no_instrument_function)); > ./net/rxrpc/main.c:__attribute__((no_instrument_function)); > ./fs/afs/main.c:__attribute__((no_instrument_function)); > ./fs/afs/main.c:__attribute__((no_instrument_function)); > > from the gcc manual: > > "If -finstrument-functions is given, profiling function calls will be > generated at entry and exit of most user-compiled functions. Functions > with this attribute will not be so instrumented." > > that *seems* like a useful attribute so the obvious question is -- > why is it not used more widely? that seems kind of odd. (in fact, > the functions with these attributes are all commented out within an > "#if 0" so they make no difference, anyway.) It seems like a useful attribute to *disable* instrumentation in the kernel? Why? Thanks, Nish -- Nishanth Aravamudan IBM Linux Technology Center _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors