Re: [PATCH 01/15] tracepoint: Add trace_invoke_##name() API

[Vineeth Remanan Pillai]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 11:13 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 11:04:56 -0400
> "Vineeth Pillai (Google)" <vineeth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Add trace_invoke_##name() as a companion to trace_##name().  When a
> > caller already guards a tracepoint with an explicit enabled check:
> >
> >   if (trace_foo_enabled() && cond)
> >       trace_foo(args);
> >
> > trace_foo() internally repeats the static_branch_unlikely() test, which
> > the compiler cannot fold since static branches are patched binary
> > instructions.  This results in two static-branch evaluations for every
> > guarded call site.
> >
> > trace_invoke_##name() calls __do_trace_##name() directly, skipping the
> > redundant static-branch re-check.  This avoids leaking the internal
> > __do_trace_##name() symbol into call sites while still eliminating the
> > double evaluation:
> >
> >   if (trace_foo_enabled() && cond)
> >       trace_invoke_foo(args);   /* calls __do_trace_foo() directly */
> >
> > Three locations are updated:
> > - __DECLARE_TRACE: invoke form omits static_branch_unlikely, retains
> >   the LOCKDEP RCU-watching assertion.
> > - __DECLARE_TRACE_SYSCALL: same, plus retains might_fault().
> > - !TRACEPOINTS_ENABLED stub: empty no-op so callers compile cleanly
> >   when tracepoints are compiled out.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Vineeth Pillai (Google) <vineeth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Assisted-by: Claude:claude-sonnet-4-6
>
> I'm guessing Claude helped with the other patches. Did it really help with this one?
>

Claude wrote and build tested the whole series based on my guidance
and prompt :-). I verified the series before sending it out, but
claude did the initial work.

Thanks,
Vineeth