Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make ftrace able to trace function return

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> gcc -c -finstrument-functions traceme.c

> This is not 5 extra bytes but 27 extra bytes for a total of 32 bytes 
> at every function. Also note that this also adds these calls to 
> inline functions as well. We could easly stop that by adding 
> "notrace" to the inline define (which I've done).
> 
> But this would make the patching a bit more difficult (not 
> impossible). But it will bloat the image quite a bit.

yeah, i too knew it was expensive, but didnt realize it's this bloaty. 
It's a non-starter really.

How reliable can we make Frederic's trampoline approach? Especially 
with the opt-in function filters of dyn-ftrace, there's real value in 
the trampoline approach IMO (we could display real function cost, 
etc.), and the runtime cost should be OK as long we dont probe a ton 
of functions all the time. (and it's optional anyway)

	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/