Re: [PATCH 1/3] add binary printf
[Posted March 4, 2009 by jake]
| From: |
| Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu> |
| To: |
| Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec-AT-gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [PATCH 1/3] add binary printf |
| Date: |
| Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:02:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID: |
| <20090226130243.GA22460@elte.hu> |
| Cc: |
| linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs-AT-cn.fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org> |
| Archive-link: |
| Article, Thread
|
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
>
> Impact: Add APIs for binary trace printk infrastructure
>
> vbin_printf(): write args to binary buffer, string is copied
> when "%s" is occurred.
>
> bstr_printf(): read from binary buffer for args and format a string
>
> [fweisbec@gmail.com: ported to latest -tip]
>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> ---
> include/linux/string.h | 7 +
> lib/Kconfig | 3 +
> lib/vsprintf.c | 442 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 452 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
OK, it's a nice idea and speedup for printf based tracing -
which is common and convenient. Would you mind to post the
performance measurements you've done using the new bstr_printf()
facility? (the nanoseconds latency figures you did in the timer
irq in a system under load and on a system that is idle)
The new printf code itself should be done cleaner i think and is
not acceptable in its current form.
These two new functions:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BINARY_PRINTF
> +/*
> + * bprintf service:
> + * vbin_printf() - VA arguments to binary data
> + * bstr_printf() - Binary data to text string
> + */
Duplicate hundreds of lines of code into three large functions
(vsnprintf, vbin_printf, bstr_printf). These functions only have
a difference in the way the argument list is iterated and the
way the parsed result is stored:
vsnprintf: iterates va_list, stores into string
bstr_printf: iterates bin_buf, stores into string
vbin_printf: iterates va_list, stores into bin_buf
We should try _much_ harder at unifying these functions before
giving up and duplicating them...
An opaque in_buf/out_buf handle plus two helper function
pointers passed in would be an obvious implementation.
That way we'd have a single generic (inline) function that knows
about the printf format itself:
__generic_printf(void *in_buf,
void *out_buf,
void * (*read_in_buf)(void **),
void * (*store_out_buf)(void **));
And we'd have various variants for read_in_buf and
store_out_buf. The generic function iterates the following way:
in_val = read_in_buf(&in_buf);
...
store_out_buf(&out_buf, in_val);
(where in_val is wide enough to store a single argument.) The
iterators modify the in_buf / out_buf pointers. Argument
skipping can be done by reading the in-buf and not using it. I
think we can do it with just two iterator methods.
Or something like that - you get the idea. It can all be inlined
so that we'd end up with essentially the same vsnprint()
instruction sequence we have today.
Ingo
(
Log in to post comments)