From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: "Vineeth Pillai (Google)" <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] io_uring: Use trace_invoke_##name() at guarded tracepoint call sites
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:24:21 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <abLapcC7YGYDyJ3L@kbusch-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260312150523.2054552-4-vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 11:04:58AM -0400, Vineeth Pillai (Google) wrote:
> if (trace_io_uring_complete_enabled())
> - trace_io_uring_complete(req->ctx, req, cqe);
> + trace_invoke_io_uring_complete(req->ctx, req, cqe);
Curious, this one doesn't follow that pattern of "if (enabed && cond)"
that this cover letter said it was addressing, so why doesn't this call
just drop the 'if' check and go straight to trace_io_uring_complete()? I
followed this usage to commit a0730c738309a06, which says that the
compiler was generating code to move args before checking if the trace
was enabled. That commit was a while ago though, and suggests to remove
the check if that problem is solved. Is it still a problem?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-12 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-12 15:04 [PATCH 00/15] tracepoint: Avoid double static_branch evaluation at guarded call sites Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:04 ` [PATCH 01/15] tracepoint: Add trace_invoke_##name() API Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-12 15:39 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2026-03-12 15:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-12 16:05 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2026-03-14 0:24 ` Keith Busch
2026-03-12 15:04 ` [PATCH 03/15] io_uring: Use trace_invoke_##name() at guarded tracepoint call sites Vineeth Pillai (Google)
2026-03-12 15:24 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2026-03-12 15:38 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-12 15:12 ` [PATCH 00/15] tracepoint: Avoid double static_branch evaluation at guarded " Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-12 15:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-12 15:28 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-12 15:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-12 15:49 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-12 15:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-12 15:57 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-03-12 16:08 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2026-03-12 16:54 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-03-12 17:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-03-13 14:02 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=abLapcC7YGYDyJ3L@kbusch-mbp \
--to=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vineeth@bitbyteword.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox