Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] perf: Optimize sw events

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Fri Oct 15 2010 - 05:16:49 EST


On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 22:34 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/perf_event.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/perf_event.h
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/perf_event.h
> @@ -1013,15 +1013,17 @@ static inline void perf_fetch_caller_reg
> static inline void
> perf_sw_event(u32 event_id, u64 nr, int nmi, struct pt_regs *regs, u64 addr)
> {
> - if (atomic_read(&perf_swevent_enabled[event_id])) {
> - struct pt_regs hot_regs;
> + struct pt_regs hot_regs;
>
> - if (!regs) {
> - perf_fetch_caller_regs(&hot_regs);
> - regs = &hot_regs;
> - }
> - __perf_sw_event(event_id, nr, nmi, regs, addr);
> + JUMP_LABEL(&perf_swevent_enabled[event_id], have_event);
> + return;
> +
> +have_event:
> + if (!regs) {
> + perf_fetch_caller_regs(&hot_regs);
> + regs = &hot_regs;
> }
> + __perf_sw_event(event_id, nr, nmi, regs, addr);
> }
>

OK, so it appears I only compile tested this bit without jump_label
support, with that bit added back this horribly fails to compile like:

In file included from /usr/src/linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/fault.c:13:
/usr/src/linux-2.6/include/linux/perf_event.h: In function âperf_sw_event.clone.0â:
/usr/src/linux-2.6/include/linux/perf_event.h:1018: warning: asm operand 0 probably doesnât match constraints
/usr/src/linux-2.6/include/linux/perf_event.h:1018: error: impossible constraint in âasmâ


The relevant snippet from the .i file reads:

static inline void
perf_sw_event(u32 event_id, u64 nr, int nmi, struct pt_regs *regs, u64 addr)
{
struct pt_regs hot_regs;

do { asm goto("1:" ".byte 0xe9 \n\t .long 0\n\t" ".pushsection __jump_table, \"a\" \n\t" " " ".quad" " " "1b, %l[" "have_event" "], %c0 \n\t" ".popsection \n\t" : : "i" (&perf_swevent_enabled[event_id]) : : have_event); } while (0);
return;

have_event:
if (!regs) {
perf_fetch_caller_regs(&hot_regs);
regs = &hot_regs;
}
__perf_sw_event(event_id, nr, nmi, regs, addr);
}


Anybody got any clue as to why this goes splat?

I tried both:

gcc (GCC) 4.4.4 20100630 (Red Hat 4.4.4-10)

and

x86_64-linux-gcc (GCC) 4.5.1


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/