* Frank Ch. Eigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
