Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755746AbYHHRqT (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:46:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752002AbYHHRqL (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:46:11 -0400 Received: from tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.25]:47222 "EHLO tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751591AbYHHRqK (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:46:10 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnkFAHcgnEhMRKxB/2dsb2JhbACBXKsE Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:46:07 -0400 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Steven Rostedt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , David Miller , Roland McGrath , Ulrich Drepper , Rusty Russell , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Gregory Haskins , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" , Clark Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] ftrace: to kill a daemon Message-ID: <20080808174607.GG8244@Krystal> References: <20080807182013.984175558@goodmis.org> <20080807184741.GB18164@Krystal> <20080808172259.GB8244@Krystal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080 X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.21.3-grsec (i686) X-Uptime: 13:42:52 up 64 days, 22:23, 6 users, load average: 1.04, 0.61, 0.66 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1764 Lines: 56 * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote: > > > > > > I originally used jumps instead of nops, but unfortunately, they actually > > > hurt performance more than adding nops. Ingo told me it was probably due > > > to using up the jump predictions of the CPU. > > > > > > > Hrm, are you sure you use a single 5-bytes nop instruction then, or do > > you use a mix of various nop sizes (add_nops) on some architectures ? > > I use (for x86) what is in include/asm-x86/nops.h depending on what the > cpuid gives us. > That's bad : #define GENERIC_NOP5 GENERIC_NOP1 GENERIC_NOP4 #define K8_NOP5 K8_NOP3 K8_NOP2 #define K7_NOP5 K7_NOP4 ASM_NOP1 So, when you try, later, to replace these instructions with a single 5-bytes instruction, a preempted thread could iret in the middle of your 5-bytes insn and cause an illegal instruction ? > > > > You can consume the branch prediction buffers for conditional branches, > > but I doubt static jumps have this impact ? I don't see what "jump > > predictions" you are referring to here exactly. > > I don't know the details, but we definitely saw a drop in preformance > between using nops and static jumps. > Generated by replacing all the call by 5-bytes jumps e9 00 00 00 00 instead of the 5-bytes add_nops ? On which architectures ? Mathieu > -- Steve > -- Mathieu Desnoyers OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/