From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
mingo@goodmis.org, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Stupid tracepoint ideas
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:54:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090420205438.GA11567@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904201456470.26147@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
>
> Mathieu,
>
> You may have tried this in your creation of tracepoints, but I figured I
> would ask before wasting too much time on it.
>
> I'm looking at ways to make tracepoints even lighter weight when disabled.
> And I thought of doing section code. I'm playing with the following idea
> (see below patch) but I'm afraid gcc is allowed to think that the code it
> produces will not move to different sections.
>
> Any thoughts on how we could do something similar to this.
>
> Note, this patch is purely proof-of-concept. I'm fully aware that it is an
> x86 solution only.
>
> -- Steve
>
> [ no Signed-off-by: because this patch is crap ]
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/tracepoint.h b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> index 4353f3f..6953f78 100644
> --- a/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> +++ b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> @@ -65,9 +65,18 @@ struct tracepoint {
> extern struct tracepoint __tracepoint_##name; \
> static inline void trace_##name(proto) \
> { \
> - if (unlikely(__tracepoint_##name.state)) \
> + if (unlikely(__tracepoint_##name.state)) { \
> + asm volatile ("jmp 43f\n" \
> + "42:\n" \
> + ".section .unlikely,\"ax\"\n" \
> + "43:\n" \
> + ::: "memory"); \
> __DO_TRACE(&__tracepoint_##name, \
> - TP_PROTO(proto), TP_ARGS(args)); \
> + TP_PROTO(proto), TP_ARGS(args)); \
> + asm volatile ("jmp 42b\n" \
> + ".previous\n" \
> + ::: "memory"); \
> + } \
You are right, I thought of this.
gcc forbids jumping outside of inline assembly statements. Optimisations
done by gcc are not aware of this sort of execution flow modification,
and gcc has every rights to interleave unrelated code between the two
inline assembly statements.
And is it me or this sounds like an infinite loop ?
42:
....
jmp 42b
Mathieu
> } \
> static inline int register_trace_##name(void (*probe)(proto)) \
> { \
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-20 20:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-20 19:04 [RFC] Stupid tracepoint ideas Steven Rostedt
2009-04-20 19:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-20 19:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-04-20 20:54 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2009-04-20 21:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-04-20 21:12 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-21 7:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 15:46 ` 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=20090420205438.GA11567@Krystal \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@goodmis.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).