From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] tracepoint/jump_label overhead
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:25:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1321543520.27735.67.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1321502104.3274.22.camel@edumazet-laptop>
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 04:55 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> The general admitted claim of a tracepoint being on x86 a single
> instruction :
>
> jmp +0
>
> Is not always true.
>
> For example in mm/slub.c, kmem_cache_alloc()
>
> void *ret = slab_alloc(s, gfpflags, NUMA_NO_NODE, _RET_IP_);
> trace_kmem_cache_alloc(_RET_IP_, ret, s->objsize, s->size, gfpflags);
> return ret;
>
> We can check compiler output and see that 4 extra instructions were
> added because s->objsize & s->size are evaluated.
>
> I noticed this in a perf session, because these 4 extra instructions
> added some noticeable latency/cost.
>
> c10e26a4: 8b 5d d8 mov -0x28(%ebp),%ebx
> c10e26a7: 85 db test %ebx,%ebx
> c10e26a9: 75 6d jne c10e2718 (doing the memset())
> c10e26ab: 8b 76 0c mov 0xc(%esi),%esi // extra 1
> c10e26ae: 8b 5d 04 mov 0x4(%ebp),%ebx // extra 2
> c10e26b1: 89 75 f0 mov %esi,-0x10(%ebp) // extra 3
> c10e26b4: 89 5d ec mov %ebx,-0x14(%ebp) // extra 4
> c10e26b7: e9 00 00 00 00 jmp c10e26bc
> c10e26bc: 8b 45 d8 mov -0x28(%ebp),%eax
> c10e26bf: 83 c4 28 add $0x28,%esp
> c10e26c2: 5b pop %ebx
> c10e26c3: 5e pop %esi
> c10e26c4: 5f pop %edi
> c10e26c5: c9 leave
>
>
> A fix would be to not declare an inline function but a macro...
>
> #define trace_kmem_cache_alloc(...) \
> if (static_branch(&__tracepoint_kmem_cache_alloc.key)) \
> __DO_TRACE(&__tracepoint_kmem_cache_alloc, \
> ...
>
> Anyone has some clever idea how to make this possible ?
Right so you're not really supposed to use arguments that require
evaluation in tracepoints, although I bet its common these days :/
The problem here is that its 'hard' to pass s in and have the
TP_fast_assign() thing do the dereference because of the sl[auo]b thing.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-17 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-17 3:55 Eric Dumazet
2011-11-17 15:25 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-11-17 15:38 ` Avi Kivity
2011-11-17 15:56 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-11-17 20:50 ` [RFC PATCH] Tracepoint: introduce tracepoint() API Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-11-17 21:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-11-17 21:58 ` Jason Baron
2011-11-17 22:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-11-17 23:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=1321543520.27735.67.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--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
Powered by JetHome