[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH -v4 9/9] tracing: add function graph tracer support for MIPS

Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 9/9] tracing: add function graph tracer support for MIPS
From: David Daney <>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:59:47 -0700
Cc:,,, Thomas Gleixner <>, Ralf Baechle <>, Nicholas Mc Guire <>
In-reply-to: <1256211516.3852.47.camel@falcon>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <1256211516.3852.47.camel@falcon>
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090320)
Wu Zhangjin wrote:

On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 13:23 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 10:07 -0700, David Daney wrote:

I have not used -pg, so I don't know for sure, I think all it does is add the calls to _mcount. Someone could investigate -fno-omit-frame-pointer, with that you may be able to use:
Note, -pg assumes -fno-omit-frame-pointer, since -fomit-frame-pointer
and -pg are incompatible.

Ralf have told me -pg really works with -fomit-frame-pointer, although
the gcc tool tell us they are not incompatible when we use both of them
together, but when I remove -fno-omit-frame-pointer in
KBUILD_FLAGS(enabled by CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER), it definitely remove the
s8(fp) relative source code(Seems -fomit-frame-pionter is used by
default by gcc), the leaf function becomes this:


80101144 <au1k_wait>:
80101144:       03e00821        move    at,ra
80101148:       0c04271c        jal     80109c70 <_mcount>

No more instruction,

and the non-leaf function becomes,

80126590 <copy_process>:
80126590:       27bdffa0        addiu   sp,sp,-96
80126594:       afbf005c        sw      ra,92(sp)
80126598:       afbe0058        sw      s8,88(sp)
8012659c:       afb70054        sw      s7,84(sp)
801265a0:       afb60050        sw      s6,80(sp)
801265a4:       afb5004c        sw      s5,76(sp)
801265a8:       afb40048        sw      s4,72(sp)
801265ac:       afb30044        sw      s3,68(sp)
801265b0:       afb20040        sw      s2,64(sp)
801265b4:       afb1003c        sw      s1,60(sp)
801265b8:       afb00038        sw      s0,56(sp)
801265bc:       03e00821        move    at,ra
801265c0:       0c04271c        jal     80109c70 <_mcount>

It may save about two instructions for us.
        sw      s8, offset(sp)
        move    s8, fp

and also, I have tried to just search "Save" instruction, if I find one,
that should be a non-leaf function, otherwise, it's leaf function, but I
can not prove no "Save" instruction before the leaf function's "move at,
ra", for example:

8010113c:       03e00008        jr      ra
80101140:       00020021        nop

80101144 <au1k_wait>:
80101144:       03e00821        move    at,ra
80101148:       0c04271c        jal     80109c70 <_mcount>

if there is "save" instruction at address 80101140, it will fail.
Although, I met not failure with several tries, but no prove on it! any
ABI protection for this? if YES, this should be a better solution, for
it may works without -fno-omit-frame-pointer and save several
instructions for us.

This is what I was talking about up-thread. Leaf functions may have no function prolog. If you do code scanning you will fail. While scanning backwards, there is no way to know when you have entered a new function. Looking for function return sequences 'jr ra' doesn't work as there may be functions with multiple return sites, functions that never return, or arbitrary data before the function. I think you have to force a frame pointer to be established if you want this to work.

David Daney

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>