From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755497AbcKVIT3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 22 Nov 2016 03:19:29 -0500
Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:34307 "EHLO
        mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755413AbcKVIT2 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 22 Nov 2016 03:19:28 -0500
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:19:25 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] msr-trace.h:42 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20161121092850.GF3102@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20161121170612.GT26852@two.firstfloor.org>
 <20161121171853.GK3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20161121174504.GU26852@two.firstfloor.org>
 <20161121130115.2f0f38e7@gandalf.local.home>
 <20161121180654.GV26852@two.firstfloor.org>
 <20161121132220.17fb0515@gandalf.local.home>
 <20161121183700.GW26852@two.firstfloor.org>
 <20161121141517.31936dbe@gandalf.local.home>
 <20161121204445.GX26852@two.firstfloor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161121204445.GX26852@two.firstfloor.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 16112208-8235-0000-0000-000009A99EED
X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: 
X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00006121; HX=3.00000240; KW=3.00000007;
 PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000189; SDB=6.00783794; UDB=6.00378552; IPR=6.00561413;
 BA=6.00004900; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000;
 ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00013406; XFM=3.00000011;
 UTC=2016-11-22 08:19:25
X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused
x-cbparentid: 16112208-8236-0000-0000-000036A9747C
Message-Id: <20161122081925.GB3612@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-11-22_05:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0
 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam
 adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609300000
 definitions=main-1611220150
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:44:45PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > http://halobates.de/tracepoint-trace
> > 
> > There's a lot of push and pop regs due to function calling. There's
> > places that inlines can still improve things, and perhaps even some
> > likely unlikelys well placed.
> 
> Assuming you avoid all the push/pop and all the call/ret this would only be
> ~25% of the total instructions. There is just far too much logic and
> computation in there.
> 
> % awk ' { print $5 } '  tracepoint-trace | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
>     222 mov
>      57 push
>      57 pop
>      35 test
>      34 cmp
>      32 and
>      28 jz
>      25 jnz
>      21 ret
>      20 call
>      16 lea
>      11 add

Hmmm...  It does indeed look like some performance analysis would be good...

							Thanx, Paul