While the generic vdso patchset is in development, we decided to think
about what other ways of generating two vdso libraries. In this
patchset, we use a linker script, but it looks too complicated, so we
decided to look at other options. Another obvious approach is the code
patching technique.
On 2/8/19 9:57 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>
> Cc: + Vincenzo, Will
>
>> On 06/02/2019 01.10, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>>> As it has been discussed on timens RFC, adding a new conditional branch
>>> `if (inside_time_ns)` on VDSO for all processes is
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
Cc: + Vincenzo, Will
> On 06/02/2019 01.10, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > As it has been discussed on timens RFC, adding a new conditional branch
> > `if (inside_time_ns)` on VDSO for all processes is undesirable.
> > It will add a penalty for everybody as
Hi Rasmus,
On 2/7/19 8:31 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> These (14-19, if I'm reading them right) seems to add quite a lot of
> complexity and fragility to the build, and other architectures would
> probably have to add something similar to their vdso builds.
>
> I'm wondering why not make the
On 06/02/2019 01.10, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> As it has been discussed on timens RFC, adding a new conditional branch
> `if (inside_time_ns)` on VDSO for all processes is undesirable.
> It will add a penalty for everybody as branch predictor may mispredict
> the jump. Also there are instruction
As it has been discussed on timens RFC, adding a new conditional branch
`if (inside_time_ns)` on VDSO for all processes is undesirable.
It will add a penalty for everybody as branch predictor may mispredict
the jump. Also there are instruction cache lines wasted on cmp/jmp.
Those effects of
6 matches
Mail list logo
