On 2013/06/11 07:20:41, dcarney wrote:
On 2013/06/10 22:00:09, Yury Semikhatsky wrote:
> The approach when we check if profiler is active in the generated code
should
> have minimal perf impact of all options considered here. In offline
discussion
> with danno@ we decided to give it a try and be prepared to roll back in
case
of
> noticeable regression.
>
> I updated the CL so that CpuProfiler::is_profiling_ flag is checked
before
> calling callback wrapper. Also as wrapper functions have one additional
> parameter compared to the signature of actual accessors I added separate
> external reference types for them.
You end up duplicating the entire CallApiFunctionAndReturn assembler,
although
almost all the arguments are the same. Maybe you could pass the function
address to that function in a register and do a conditional move into that
register to activate the profiling code? A lot of callback ICs are
generated
and it would be unfortunate to waste so much memory on them.
Done. Moved is_profiling check to CallApiFunctionAndReturn.
https://codereview.chromium.org/16286016/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
