Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1430794
| From | Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries |
| Date | 2016-06-24 18:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rNBZL-1W6-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rBDui-2oV-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <rNd1n-2aV-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <rNsWt-4B1-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rNBQ6-1SP-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:04:40PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 15:35:44 +0900
> Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace.h b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > > > index dea12a6e413b..35c523ba5c59 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > > > @@ -751,25 +751,33 @@ extern void ftrace_init(void);
> > > > static inline void ftrace_init(void) { }
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_64BIT_ALIGNED_ACCESS
> > > > +# define FTRACE_ALIGNMENT 4
> > > > +#else
> > > > +# define FTRACE_ALIGNMENT 8
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > Swap the above. Having the #ifndef is more confusing to understand than
> > > to have a #ifdef.
> >
> > Will do.
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +#define FTRACE_ALIGN_DATA __attribute__((packed, aligned(FTRACE_ALIGNMENT)))
> > >
> > > Do we really need to pack it? I mean, just get rid of the hole (like
> > > you did with the movement of the overrun) and shouldn't the array be
> > > aligned normally without holes, if the arch can support it? Doesn't gcc
> > > take care of that?
> >
> > I'm not sure I understood you correctly. AFAIK the size of struct is
> > a multiple of alignment unit and gcc manual says the aligment
> > attribute only can be increased unless the 'packed' is used as well..
>
> Ah, I see you are trying to get the recorded size in the array down to
> a 4 byte alignment (due to the "int depth"), instead of adding the 4
> bytes to the buffer.
>
> Hmm, I wondering if we need the ifdef above, as the ring buffer itself
> will force the 8 byte alignment of structures added to the buffer.
As far as I can see, the ring buffer has following code in ring_buffer.c:
#define RB_ALIGNMENT 4U
#define RB_MAX_SMALL_DATA (RB_ALIGNMENT * RINGBUF_TYPE_DATA_TYPE_LEN_MAX)
#define RB_EVNT_MIN_SIZE 8U /* two 32bit words */
#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_64BIT_ALIGNED_ACCESS
# define RB_FORCE_8BYTE_ALIGNMENT 0
# define RB_ARCH_ALIGNMENT RB_ALIGNMENT
#else
# define RB_FORCE_8BYTE_ALIGNMENT 1
# define RB_ARCH_ALIGNMENT 8U
#endif
#define RB_ALIGN_DATA __aligned(RB_ARCH_ALIGNMENT)
Thanks,
Namhyung
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC/PATCH] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> - 2016-06-24 08:40 +0200
Re: [RFC/PATCH] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-06-24 18:10 +0200
Re: [RFC/PATCH] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> - 2016-06-24 18:20 +0200
Re: [RFC/PATCH] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-06-24 19:30 +0200
Re: [RFC/PATCH] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> - 2016-06-25 05:50 +0200
csiph-web