[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v7 04/17] tracing: add static function tracer support for MIP

To: Wu Zhangjin <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 04/17] tracing: add static function tracer support for MIPS
From: Ralf Baechle <>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:13:25 +0100
Cc: David Daney <>,,,,,, Frederic Weisbecker <>, Ingo Molnar <>, Nicholas Mc Guire <>, Richard Sandiford <>, Patrik Kluba <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, Michal Simek <>
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:42:31AM +0800, Wu Zhangjin wrote:

> > -mlong-calls really degrades performance.  I have seen things like 6% 
> > drop in network packet forwarding rates with -mlong-calls.
> > 
> so much drop? seems only two instructions added for it: lui, addi. from
> this view point, I think the -fno-omit-frame-pointer(add, sd, move...)
> will also bring with much drop.

The calling sequence is quite badly bloated.  Example:

Normal 32/64-bit subroutine call:

        jal     symbol

32-bit with -mlong-call:

        lui     $25, %hi(foo)
        addiu   $25, %lo(foo)
        jalr    $25

64-bit with -mlong-call:

        lui     $25, %highest(foo)
        lui     $2, %hi(foo)
        daddiu  $25, %higher(foo)
        daddiu  $2, %lo(foo)
        dsll    $25, 32
        daddu   $25, $2
        jalr    $25

So not considering the possible cost of the delay slot that's 1 vs. 3 vs. 7
instructions.  Last I checked ages ago gcc didn't apropriately consider this
cost when generating -mlong-calls code and Linux these days also is
optimized under the assumption that subroutine calls are cheap.

It's time that we get a -G optimization that works for the kernel; it would
allow to cut down the -mlong-calls calling sequence to just:

        lw/ld   $25, offset($gp)
        jalr    $25

> It's time to remove them? -mlong-calls, -fno-omit-frame-pointer.
> > It would be better to fix all the tools so that they could handle both 
> > -mlong-calls and -mno-long-calls code.
> > 
> It's totally possible, will try to make it work later. I just wanted the
> stuff simple, but if it really brings us with much drop, it's time to
> fix it.


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