Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Nov 19 2009 - 14:51:15 EST



* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 19:47 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Admittedly, anybody who compiles with -pg probably doesn't care deeply
> > > about smaller and more efficient code, since the mcount call overhead
> > > tends to make the thing moot anyway, but it really looks like a
> > > win-win situation to just fix the mcount call sequence regardless.
> >
> > Just a sidenote: due to dyn-ftrace, which patches out all mcounts during
> > bootup to be NOPs (and opt-in patches them in again if someone runs the
> > function tracer), the cost is not as large as one would have it with say
> > -pg based user-space profiling.
> >
> > It's not completely zero-cost as the pure NOPs balloon the i$ footprint
> > a bit and GCC generates different code too in some cases. But it's
> > certainly good enough that it's generally pretty hard to prove overhead
> > via micro or macro benchmarks that the patched out mcounts call sites
> > are there.
>
> And frame pointers do add a little overhead as well. Too bad the mcount
> ABI wasn't something like this:
>
>
> <function>:
> call mcount
> [...]
>
> This way, the function address for mcount would have been (%esp) and
> the parent address would be 4(%esp). Mcount would work without frame
> pointers and this whole mess would also become moot.

In that case we could also fix up static callsites to this address as
well (to jump +5 bytes into the function) and avoid the NOP as well in
most cases. (That would in essence merge any slow-path function epilogue
with the mcount cal instruction in terms of I$ footprint - i.e. it would
be an even lower overhead feature.)

If only the kernel had its own compiler.

Ingo
--
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/