On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:50:37PM +0900, byungchul.park wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xinhui [mailto:xinhui....@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 4:29 PM
> > To: Byungchul Park; pet...@infradead.org; mi...@kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; npig...@suse.de; wal...@google.com;
> > a...@suse.de; t...@inhelltoy.tec.linutronix.de
> > Subject: Re: [RFC 12/12] x86/dumpstack: Optimize save_stack_trace
> >
> >
> > On 2016年06月20日 12:55, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > Currently, x86 implementation of save_stack_trace() is walking all stack
> > > region word by word regardless of what the trace->max_entries is.
> > > However, it's unnecessary to walk after already fulfilling caller's
> > > requirement, say, if trace->nr_entries >= trace->max_entries is true.
> > >
> > > For example, CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE implementation calls
> > > save_stack_trace() with max_entries = 5 frequently. I measured its
> > > overhead and printed its difference of sched_clock() with my QEMU x86
> > > machine.
> > >
> > > The latency was improved over 70% when trace->max_entries = 5.
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > +static int save_stack_end(void *data)
> > > +{
> > > + struct stack_trace *trace = data;
> > > + return trace->nr_entries >= trace->max_entries;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static const struct stacktrace_ops save_stack_ops = {
> > > .stack = save_stack_stack,
> > > .address = save_stack_address,
> > then why not check the return value of ->address(), -1 indicate there is
> > no room to store any pointer.
>
> Hello,
>
> Indeed. It also looks good to me even though it has to propagate the condition
> between callback functions. I will modify it if it's better.
Do you also think it would be better to make it propagate the result of
->address() rather than add a new callback, say, end_walk?
>
> Thank you.
> Byungchul
>
> >
> > > .walk_stack = print_context_stack,
> > > + .end_walk = save_stack_end,
> > > };
> > >
> > > static const struct stacktrace_ops save_stack_ops_nosched = {
> > >
