Re: ftrace performance impact with different configuration

[Rabin Vincent]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 14:08, Lei Wen <adrian.wenl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2. Seem dynamic ftrace also could involve some penalty for the running
> system, although it patching the running kernel with nop stub...
>
> For the second item, is there anyone done some research before that
> could zero the cost for the running system when the tracing is not
> enabled yet?

One thing that needs to be fixed (for ARM) is that for the new-style
mcounts, the nop that's currently being done is not really a nop -- it
removes the function call, but there is still an unnecessary push/pop
sequence.  This should be modified to have the push {lr} removed too.
(Two instructions replaced instead of one.)
--
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/