On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 09:43 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> > Instead of converting the 800 or so uses of seq_printf with
> > a constant format (without a % substitution) to seq_puts,
> > maybe there's another way to slightly speed up these outputs.
> >
> > Taking a similar approach to commit abd84d60eb
> > ("tracing: Optimize trace_printk() with one arg to use trace_puts()")
> > use the preprocessor to convert seq_printf(seq, "string constant")
> > to seq_puts(seq, "string constant")
> >
> > By stringifying __VA_ARGS__, we can, at compile time, determine
> > the number of args that are being passed to seq_printf() and
> > call seq_puts or seq_printf appropriately.
> >
> > The actual function definition for seq_printf must now
> > be enclosed in parenthesis to avoid further macro expansion.
>
> This is certainly a neat trick.
>
> But I don't really like the fact that it complicates things for every
> future code reader, especially when a trivial change in the caller
> would accomplish the same thing. Do you have any idea how much
> performance we would gain in exchange for the complication?
Nope. I believe it's trivial in any case.
I just saw Steven's trace hack and thought of seq_printk.
Is there a real performance sensitive seq_printf anywhere?
It's trivial to replace seq_printf("constant") with
seq_puts but there are over a thousand of them.
It may be better to just leave everything as-is.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
