Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 6 Aug 2018 07:24:54 +0200
From:   Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>, dalias@libc.org,
        tony.luck@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, msalter@redhat.com,
        jacquiot.aurelien@gmail.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, mingo@redhat.com,
        Pirama Arumuga Nainar <pirama@google.com>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>,
        Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Getting the instruction pointer on a per arch basis
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdnAzsF_vXH4UQiQd9HwjUju_sU9R4523zxqJSphuut-7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKwvOdku_BOi6m2ugaef6=8+VH_+KAHH-Ch+uZZqMr8WAKARCw@mail.gmail.com>
        <CAKwvOdn1Ri2VP9hNfKwQ3WMzL278e7-3DGusZc1cwQZbk9H6nw@mail.gmail.com>
        <20180801074051.11fa62b3@mschwideX1>
        <CAKwvOdnAzsF_vXH4UQiQd9HwjUju_sU9R4523zxqJSphuut-7Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <20180806072454.6efb5973@mschwideX1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 11:21:13 -0700
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:41 PM Martin Schwidefsky
> <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 16:09:06 -0700
> > Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > + More maintainers and lists for visibility
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:32 PM Nick Desaulniers
> > > <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > I'm currently looking into cleaning up the code duplication between
> > > > current_text_addr() and _THIS_IP_, virtually every implementation of
> > > > current_text_addr() and _THIS_IP_ itself are basically:
> > > >
> > > > #define _THIS_IP_ ({ __label__ _l; _l: &&_l; })
> > > >
> > > > For a few arch's, they have inline assembly instead (for
> > > > current_text_addr()).  Examples:
> > > > * s390
> > > > * sh
> > > > * ia64
> > > > * x86 (um and 32b)
> > > > * c6x
> > > > * sparc
> > > >
> > > > I have a patch that cuts down on the duplication, but I don't
> > > > understand why the few arch specific implementations are necessary.  I
> > > > could reduce the duplication further if it's ok to just use the
> > > > statement expression.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know why this is the case?  
> >
> > For s390 it is just that we did not know about the label trick when we
> > introduced the define. The inline has an advantage though, the code
> > generated with the label trick is using a LARL instruction which is
> > 4 bytes, the inline assembly uses a BASR which is 2 bytes.
> >
> > If I use the label method in current_text_addr() the size of vmlinux
> > increases by a small amount:
> >
> > add/remove: 33/13 grow/shrink: 101/48 up/down: 11941/-8887 (3054)  
> 
> Thanks for the measurements.  Was this output produced by a utility?

Yes, ./scripts/bloat-o-meter

> > This is acceptable though, I would not mind if _THIS_IP_ and
> > current_text_addr use a common definition using labels.  
> 
> Thank you for this feedback Martin, I appreciate it.  Patches soon.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.