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
next prev 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).