From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: "Vineeth Pillai (Google)" <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] io_uring: Use trace_invoke_##name() at guarded tracepoint call sites
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:24:21 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <abLapcC7YGYDyJ3L@kbusch-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260312150523.2054552-4-vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 11:04:58AM -0400, Vineeth Pillai (Google) wrote:
> if (trace_io_uring_complete_enabled())
> - trace_io_uring_complete(req->ctx, req, cqe);
> + trace_invoke_io_uring_complete(req->ctx, req, cqe);
Curious, this one doesn't follow that pattern of "if (enabed && cond)"
that this cover letter said it was addressing, so why doesn't this call
just drop the 'if' check and go straight to trace_io_uring_complete()? I
followed this usage to commit a0730c738309a06, which says that the
compiler was generating code to move args before checking if the trace
was enabled. That commit was a while ago though, and suggests to remove
the check if that problem is solved. Is it still a problem?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-12 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-12 15:04 [PATCH 00/15] tracepoint: Avoid double static_branch evaluation at guarded call sites Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:04 ` [PATCH 01/15] tracepoint: Add trace_invoke_##name() API Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-12 15:39 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2026-03-12 15:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-12 16:05 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2026-03-14 0:24 ` Keith Busch
2026-03-12 15:04 ` [PATCH 02/15] kernel: Use trace_invoke_##name() at guarded tracepoint call sites Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:04 ` [PATCH 03/15] io_uring: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:24 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2026-03-12 15:38 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-18 14:51 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2026-03-12 15:04 ` [PATCH 04/15] net: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:31 ` Aaron Conole
2026-03-18 13:40 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2026-03-18 14:13 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2026-03-17 10:34 ` Paolo Abeni
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 05/15] accel/habanalabs: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 06/15] cpufreq: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 18:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-03-13 6:07 ` Viresh Kumar
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 07/15] devfreq: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 08/15] dma-buf: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 09/15] fsi: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 10/15] drm: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 11/15] HID: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 12/15] i2c: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 16:50 ` Wolfram Sang
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 13/15] spi: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:34 ` Mark Brown
2026-03-12 15:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-12 16:54 ` Mark Brown
2026-03-12 17:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-12 20:05 ` Mark Brown
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 14/15] scsi: ufs: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:05 ` [PATCH 15/15] btrfs: " Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-13 11:57 ` David Sterba
2026-03-12 15:12 ` [PATCH 00/15] tracepoint: Avoid double static_branch evaluation at guarded " Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-12 15:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-12 15:28 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-12 15:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-12 15:49 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-12 15:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-12 15:57 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-12 16:08 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2026-03-12 16:54 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-03-12 17:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-13 14:02 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2026-03-17 16:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-17 16:02 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-18 10:58 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
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=abLapcC7YGYDyJ3L@kbusch-mbp \
--to=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vineeth@bitbyteword.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.