From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch-early-RFC 00/10] LTTng architecture dependent instrumentation
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:11:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071206101112.GB17299@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071206025650.451824066@polymtl.ca>
hi Mathieu,
* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is the architecture dependent instrumentation for LTTng. [...]
A fundamental observation about markers, and i raised this point many
many months ago already, so it might sound repetitive, but i'm unsure
wether it's addressed. Documentation/markers.txt still says:
| * Purpose of markers
|
| A marker placed in code provides a hook to call a function (probe)
| that you can provide at runtime. A marker can be "on" (a probe is
| connected to it) or "off" (no probe is attached). When a marker is
| "off" it has no effect, except for adding a tiny time penalty
| (checking a condition for a branch) and space penalty (adding a few
| bytes for the function call at the end of the instrumented function
| and adds a data structure in a separate section).
could you please eliminate the checking of the flag, and insert a pure
NOP sequence by default (no extra branches), which is then patched in
with a function call instruction sequence, when the trace point is
turned on? (on architectures that have code patching infrastructure -
such as x86)
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-06 10:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-06 2:56 [patch-early-RFC 00/10] LTTng architecture dependent instrumentation Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-06 2:56 ` [patch-early-RFC 01/10] LTTng - ARM instrumentation Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-06 2:56 ` [patch-early-RFC 02/10] LTTng - x86_32 instrumentation Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-06 2:56 ` [patch-early-RFC 03/10] LTTng - MIPS instrumentation Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-06 2:56 ` [patch-early-RFC 04/10] LTTng instrumentation Powerpc Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-06 2:56 ` [patch-early-RFC 05/10] LTTng instrumentation PPC Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-06 2:56 ` [patch-early-RFC 06/10] LTTng - instrumentation SH Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-06 2:56 ` [patch-early-RFC 07/10] LTTng instrumentation SH64 Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-06 2:56 ` [patch-early-RFC 08/10] LTTng Sparc instrumentation Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-06 2:56 ` [patch-early-RFC 09/10] LTTng - x86_64 instrumentation Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-06 2:57 ` [patch-early-RFC 10/10] LTTng - s390 instrumentation Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-06 10:11 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2007-12-06 14:19 ` [patch-early-RFC 00/10] LTTng architecture dependent instrumentation Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-08 19:05 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-12-10 0:28 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=20071206101112.GB17299@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox