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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox