lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:41:37 -0600
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:21:39AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:16:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > All other usecases are bonus, but it would certainly be interesting to
> > > > investigate the impact of using these APIs for tracing: that too is a
> > > > feature enabled everywhere but utilized only by a small fraction of Linux
> > > > users - so literally every single cycle or instruction saved or hot-path
> > > > shortened is a major win.
> > >
> > > For tracing, we'd want static_call_set_to_nop() or something like that, right?
> >
> > Are we talking about tracepoints? Or ftrace?
>
> Since ftrace changes calls to nops, and vice versa, I assume you meant
> ftrace. I don't think ftrace is a good candidate for this, as it's
> inherently more flexible than this API would reasonably allow.
>

Not sure what Andy was talking about, but I'm currently implementing
tracepoints to use this, as tracepoints use indirect calls, and are a
prime candidate for static calls, as I showed in my original RFC of
this feature.

-- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-09 19:43    [W:0.079 / U:28.208 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site