linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	jiayingz@google.com, mbligh@google.com, roland@redhat.com,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] tracepoints: delay argument evaluation
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 20:33:14 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090520003314.GA8790@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905191826031.7816@gandalf.stny.rr.com>

* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
> 
> [ added Christoph ]
> 
> On Tue, 19 May 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 
> > * Jason Baron (jbaron@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > hi,
> > > 
> > > After disassembling some of the tracepoints, I've noticed that arguments that
> > > are passed as macros or that perform  dereferences, evaluate prior to the
> > > tracepoint on/off check. This means that we are needlessly impacting the 
> > > off case.
> > > 
> > > I am proposing to fix this by adding a macro that first checks for on/off and
> > > then calls 'trace_##name', preserving type checking. Thus, callsites have to 
> > > move from:
> > > 
> > > trace_block_bio_complete(md->queue, bio);
> > > 
> > > to:
> > > 
> > > tracepoint_call(block_bio_complete,  md->queue, bio);
> > > 
> > 
> > I knew this limitation in the first place, but decided it was not worth
> > uglifying the tracepoint call site for it.
> > 
> > The expected use is to pass a pointer or a value as tracepoint argument
> > and dereference it in the callback attached to it.
> > 
> > Is there any _real_ added value for going through this API change pain ?
> > 
> 
> I agree with Mathieu that I don't think we want to "uglify" the callers. 
> But I also agree with Jason that we must not add any overhead to the "off" 
> state when we can avoid it.
> 
> If it comes down to the two, I would lean towards the "uglify" if it shows 
> performance benefits in the "off" case.
> 

Given the tradeoff is taste vs overhead, what do you think of the
following proposal ?

trace(block_bio_complete, md->queue, bio);

?

I'm thinking that it may just be the "tracepoint_call" name that's a bit
too verbose for its own good.

Mathieu

> Perhaps I'll try to see if I can fool CPP to getting both worlds. But this 
> will be tricky :-/
> 
> When are we going to get our own C pre-processor?
> 
> -- Steve
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-05-20  0:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-19 21:03 [PATCH 0/3] tracepoints: delay argument evaluation Jason Baron
2009-05-19 21:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] tracepoints: add tracepoint_call() to optimize tracepoints disabled Jason Baron
2009-05-19 21:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] tracepoints: convert scheduler tracepoints to 'tracepoint_call' api Jason Baron
2009-05-19 21:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] tracepoints: convert block " Jason Baron
2009-05-19 21:17 ` [PATCH 0/3] tracepoints: delay argument evaluation Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-05-19 22:16   ` Jason Baron
2009-05-19 22:25     ` Roland McGrath
2009-05-19 22:31       ` Steven Rostedt
2009-05-19 22:36   ` Steven Rostedt
2009-05-19 23:52     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-05-20  0:33     ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2009-05-20  0:42       ` Steven Rostedt
2009-05-20  7:01       ` Roland McGrath
2009-05-20  7:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
     [not found]   ` <20090520072750.DA9A0FC38D@magilla.sf.frob.com>
2009-05-20  7:38     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-20  9:18       ` Roland McGrath
2009-05-20  7:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-20 15:42   ` Jason Baron
2009-05-21  1:49     ` Jiaying Zhang
2009-05-21  1:59       ` Li Zefan
2009-05-21  2:15         ` Jiaying Zhang
2009-05-21  2:41           ` Li Zefan

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=20090520003314.GA8790@Krystal \
    --to=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
    --cc=fche@redhat.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
    --cc=jiayingz@google.com \
    --cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbligh@google.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=roland@redhat.com \
    --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).