From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
Cc: "K. Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
dipankar@in.ibm.com, ego@in.ibm.com,
mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Markers Implementation for Preempt RCU Boost Tracing
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:01:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080102170157.GA11161@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080102163309.GC11496@redhat.com>
* Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
> > [...] this is a general policy matter. It is _so much easier_ to add
> > markers if they _can_ have near-zero overhead (as in 1-2
> > instructions). Otherwise we'll keep arguing about it, especially if
> > any is added to performance-critical codepath. (where we are
> > counting instructions)
>
> The effect of the immediate-values patch, combined with gcc
> CFLAGS+=-freorder-blocks, *is* to keep the overhead at 1-2
> dcache-impact-free instructions. The register saves, parameter
> evaluation, the function call, can all be moved out of line.
well, -freorder-blocks seems to be default-enabled at -O2 on gcc 4.2, so
we should already be getting that, right?
There's one thing that would make out-of-line tracepoints have a lot
less objectionable to me: right now the 'out of line' area is put to the
end of functions. That splinters the kernel image with inactive, rarely
taken areas of code - blowing up its icache footprint considerably. For
example sched.o has ~100 functions, with the average function size being
200 bytes. At 64 bytes L1 cacheline size that's a 10-20% icache waste
already.
It's true that keeping the off-site code within the function keeps total
codesize slightly smaller, because the offsets (and hence the
conditional jumps) are thus 8 bit - but that's below 1% and the
cache-blow-up aspect is more severe in practice at 10-20%.
So it would be nice if we could collect all this offline code and stuff
it away into another portion of the kernel image. (or, into another
portion of the object file - which would still be good enough in
practice)
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-02 17:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-31 6:09 [PATCH 2/2] Markers Implementation for Preempt RCU Boost Tracing K. Prasad
2007-12-31 10:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-02 3:31 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2008-01-02 12:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-02 16:33 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2008-01-02 17:01 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-01-02 17:56 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2008-01-02 20:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-07 18:59 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-01-13 18:07 ` Pavel Machek
2008-01-14 15:35 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-01-14 16:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-14 19:36 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-01-02 23:49 ` Nicholas Miell
2008-01-03 19:24 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-01-03 16:30 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-01-04 10:58 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2008-01-05 12:46 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-01-07 19:43 ` K. Prasad
2008-01-07 19:50 ` [PATCH 0/2] Markers Implementation for RCU Tracing - Ver II K. Prasad
2008-02-18 12:21 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-02-18 12:47 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-02-18 19:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-02-18 20:41 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-02-19 16:27 ` Markers: multi-probe locking fun (was: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Markers Implementation for RCU Tracing - Ver II) Jan Kiszka
2008-02-19 20:33 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-02-19 22:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-02-19 22:32 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-02-19 21:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-02-19 22:03 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-02-19 22:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-01-07 19:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] Markers Implementation for RCU Preempt Tracing - Ver II K. Prasad
2008-01-07 19:56 ` [PATCH 2/2] Markers Implementation for Preempt RCU Boost " K. Prasad
2008-01-04 12:09 ` __get_cpu_var() called from a preempt-unsafe context in __rcu_preempt_unboost() ? Gautham R Shenoy
2008-01-04 13:48 ` Steven Rostedt
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-11-29 18:46 [PATCH 2/2] Markers Implementation for Preempt RCU Boost Tracing K. Prasad
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080102170157.GA11161@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=fche@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.