On 12/04/2015 11:12 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
>> (adding lkml as this is likely better discussed there)
>>
>> On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 15:42 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2015 03:24 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 15:10 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/2015 03:03 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 14:32 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/03/2015 01:52 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
>>>>>>>> I think that as a minimum, the following patch should be evaluted,
>>>>>>>> but am unsure to whom I should submit it (after I test):
>>>>>> []
>>>>>>> Agreed - the intention here is certainly to have no side effects. It
>>>>>>> looks like 'no_printk()' is used in quite a few other places that would
>>>>>>> benefit from this change. So we probably want a generic
>>>>>>> 'really_no_printk()' macro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/17/231
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see this in the tree.
>>>>
>>>> It never got applied.
>>>>
>>>>> Also maybe we should just convert
>>>>> no_printk() to do what your 'eliminated_printk()'.
>>>>
>>>> Some of them at least.
>>>>
>>>>> So we can convert all users with this change?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so, I think there are some
>>>> function evaluation/side effects that are
>>>> required. I believe some do hardware I/O.
>>>>
>>>> It'd be good to at least isolate them.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how to find them via some
>>>> automated tool/mechanism though.
>>>>
>>>> I asked Julia Lawall about it once in this
>>>> thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/3/696
>>>>
>>>
>>> Seems rather fragile to have side effects that we rely
>>> upon hidden in a printk().
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>>> Just convert them and see what breaks :)
>>
>> I appreciate your optimism. It's very 1995.
>> Try it and see what happens.
>
>
> But Aaron says that DYNAMIC_DEBUG is enabled in most major
> distributions, and all these side-effects don't happen with
> DYNAMIC_DEBUG.
When DYNAMIC_DEBUG is enabled we have this wrapper from
include/linux/dynamic_debug.h:
if (unlikely(descriptor.flags & _DPRINTK_FLAGS_PRINT))
<do debug stuff>
So the compiler is not emitting the side-effects in this
case.
>This suggests that we can make these side-effects not
> happen without DYNAMIC_DEBUG as well.
> Or I am missing something here?
>
When DYNAMIC_DEBUG is disabled we are instead replacing
pr_debug() with the 'no_printk()' function as you've pointed
out. We are changing this to emit no code at all:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=144918276518878&w=2
Thanks,
-Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
