lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls
From
Date


> On Nov 9, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>

Indeed.

Although I had assumed that tracepoints already had appropriate jump label magic.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-09 20:06    [W:0.054 / U:0.692 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site