[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH -v4 4/9] tracing: add static function tracer support for MIPS

To: Steven Rostedt <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 4/9] tracing: add static function tracer support for MIPS
From: Frederic Weisbecker <>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:09:52 +0200
Cc: Adam Nemet <>, David Daney <>,, Richard Sandiford <>,,, Thomas Gleixner <>, Ralf Baechle <>, Nicholas Mc Guire <>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=2VqvCfKnzjq3cObpkhC6zNjWWxZvnqhlaihqzw1YMZY=; b=ll4IFe+HcpuLos1//7Y94+mVDTebHXM1eMU9jJSMRyDw47mcdYoGCIw01g12KQRgJd UHkwjwbxsjDIxxkW4Odt5YiMJLctZkVhfCdx9AZYLgcV/ws+BKs7aPkTg0ZcUi98yTvv Cyi4yE4TJi3kBhW/A1ztOMGwKbXwGOsCUEEVM=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=GL/3V7M9VOSRoFx2pnvn/iwZm3JRpA0WvH2RQN2wtyXWeWw2JaIICd0OOZ3iML1g0/ BEawQCqN79yQ/1Mg/4B34FATxEWrMB5yE2MFoYBR6bRKbrLGRl7gpCH1n/EBkj0X3Txa 2KlGZHxtsrWyDiAGGG1KUqBRSVkDDpzmgzqbI=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <1256233679.23653.7.camel@falcon> <> <19168.49354.525249.654494@ropi.home> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 04:52:06PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 13:30 -0700, Adam Nemet wrote:
> > 
> > Speaking of performance, -pg also affects the instruction scheduling freedom
> > of the compiler in the prologue.  With profiling, we limit optimizations not
> > to move instructions in and out of the prologue.
> > 
> > Also note that for functions invoked via tail call you won't get an exit
> > event.  E.g. if bar is tail-called from foo:
> > 
> >   foo entered
> >   bar entered
> >   foo/bar exited
> > 
> > However, this is not MIPS-specific and you can always disable tail calls
> > with -fno-optimize-sibling-calls.


> The question is, would bar have a _mcount call? So far, we have not had
> any issues with this on either x86 nor PPC.

Nothing would prevent that I guess. I mean, we are doing a very specific
use of -pg, and common uses wouldn't require to disable the mcount call on
bar in this situation, so it's not something that -pg is supposed to care

> /me knocks on wood.

Me too (but not so hard...)

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