From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, h.mitake@gmail.com,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to lock
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:06:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100319030611.GE22095@nowhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100319024042.GB28941@Krystal>
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:40:42PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Well, the use-case that drove the asm goto implementation _is_ the tracepoints.
> ;)
>
> >
> > But, looking at __DO_TRACE:
> >
> > if (it_func) { \
> > do { \
> > ((void(*)(proto))(*it_func))(args); \
> > } while (*(++it_func)); \
> > }
> >
> > I would expect the compiler not to load the parameters in the stack
> > before first checking the branch.
>
> Note that you have to put that in its full context. It's a macro expanded within
> a static inline function. The initial parameters are passed to the static
> inline, not directly as "args" here. So parameters with side-effects have to be
> evaluated before their result can be passed to the static inline function, so in
> that sense their evaluation cannot be moved into the conditional branch.
Evaluation yeah, I agree. A function passed as an argument is
going to be evaluated indeed, or whatever thing that has a side effect.
But there is nothing here that need to setup the parameters to the stack
right before the true tracepoint call, not until we passed the branch check
once.
> > So, the fact that parameters are not loaded before we know we'll call
> > the tracepoint is something we already have or is it something that the jump
> > label brings in the package somehow?
>
> It's standard compiler optimization behavior.
Sure. My doubt is: currently with the upstream version, does the
compiler tend to load the parameters to the stack before the branch is
checked? Or is this a magic that jmp labels bring for whatever reason?
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-19 3:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-14 10:38 [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to lock Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 01/11] lock monitor: New subsystem for lock event hooking Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 02/11] Adopt lockdep to lock monitor Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 03/11] Adopt spinlock " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 04/11] Adopt rwlock " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 05/11] Adopt arch dependent rwsem " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 06/11] Adopt rwsem of x86 " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 07/11] Adopt the way of initializing semaphore " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 08/11] Adopt mutex " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 09/11] Adopt rcu_read_lock() " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 10/11] Adopt kernel/sched.c " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 10:38 ` [PATCH RFC 11/11] Very dirty temporal solution for testing " Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-14 18:13 ` [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to lock Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-17 1:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-17 7:30 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-17 15:39 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-18 5:49 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-18 20:30 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-20 5:51 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-23 15:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-17 9:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-03-17 13:59 ` Jason Baron
2010-03-18 5:59 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-18 21:16 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-19 1:08 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-19 1:23 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-19 1:36 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-19 2:27 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-19 2:40 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-19 3:06 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2010-03-19 12:56 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-19 16:00 ` Jason Baron
2010-03-20 4:51 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-20 4:46 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-20 5:56 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-20 8:23 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-21 9:49 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-23 15:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-04 7:56 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-17 1:47 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-17 7:33 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2010-03-17 9:50 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20100319030611.GE22095@nowhere \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=h.mitake@gmail.com \
--cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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