From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mathieu Desnoyers Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Markers Implementation for Preempt RCU Boost Tracing Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:59:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20080107185954.GA16041@Krystal> References: <20071231060911.GB6461@in.ibm.com> <20071231102045.GB30380@elte.hu> <20080102124734.GC11208@elte.hu> <20080102163309.GC11496@redhat.com> <20080102170157.GA11161@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , "K. Prasad" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com, ego@in.ibm.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds To: Ingo Molnar Return-path: Received: from tomts13.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.34]:47159 "EHLO tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752339AbYAGS75 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:59:57 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080102170157.GA11161@elte.hu> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote: > > * Frank Ch. Eigler 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. Hrm, I agree this can be a problem on architectures with more standard associative icaches, but aren't most x86_64 machines (and modern x86_32) using an instruction trace cache instead ? This makes the problem irrelevant. But I agree that, as Frank proposed, -freorder-blocks-and-partition could help us in that matter for the architectures using an associative L1 icache. Mathieu > > 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 -- Mathieu Desnoyers Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68