On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 12:03:34PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 23:30:55 -0600
> Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > > How much of that slowdown is reversed?
> >
> > In theory, it should reverse all of the slowdown, and actually may even
> > speed it up a little. Steve is
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 12:03:34PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 23:30:55 -0600
> Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > > How much of that slowdown is reversed?
> >
> > In theory, it should reverse all of the slowdown, and actually may even
> > speed it up a little. Steve is
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:39:52AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 06:31, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 06:02:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:39:52AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 06:31, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 06:02:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 23:30:55 -0600
Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > How much of that slowdown is reversed?
>
> In theory, it should reverse all of the slowdown, and actually may even
> speed it up a little. Steve is working on measuring that now.
When I'm able to get it to work! Hopefully that
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 23:30:55 -0600
Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > How much of that slowdown is reversed?
>
> In theory, it should reverse all of the slowdown, and actually may even
> speed it up a little. Steve is working on measuring that now.
When I'm able to get it to work! Hopefully that
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 06:31, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 06:02:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 06:31, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 06:02:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 9:02 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
> > > > x86-64 only, which means we have to use the "unoptimized"
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 9:02 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
> > > > x86-64 only, which means we have to use the "unoptimized"
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 06:02:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
> > > > x86-64 only, which means we have to use the
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 06:02:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
> > > > x86-64 only, which means we have to use the
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
> > > x86-64 only, which means we have to use the "unoptimized" version
> > > everywhere else. I may experiment with a GCC plugin
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
> > > x86-64 only, which means we have to use the "unoptimized" version
> > > everywhere else. I may experiment with a GCC plugin
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 02:42:55PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 11 November 2018 at 00:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> >> - I'm not sure about the objtool approach.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 02:42:55PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 11 November 2018 at 00:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> >> - I'm not sure about the objtool approach.
On 11 November 2018 at 00:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >> - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
>> >> x86-64 only, which means we have to use the
On 11 November 2018 at 00:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >> - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
>> >> x86-64 only, which means we have to use the
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
> >> x86-64 only, which means we have to use the "unoptimized" version
> >> everywhere else. I may
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
> >> x86-64 only, which means we have to use the "unoptimized" version
> >> everywhere else. I may
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:05:51 -0800
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:41:37 -0600
> > Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> >>> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:21:39AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:05:51 -0800
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:41:37 -0600
> > Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> >>> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:21:39AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at
On 09/11/2018 16.16, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>
>> All other usecases are bonus, but it would certainly be interesting to
>> investigate the impact of using these APIs for tracing: that too is a
>> feature enabled everywhere but utilized only
On 09/11/2018 16.16, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>
>> All other usecases are bonus, but it would certainly be interesting to
>> investigate the impact of using these APIs for tracing: that too is a
>> feature enabled everywhere but utilized only
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:59:18PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:44:09 -0600
> Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:37:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:05:51 -0800
> > > Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Not sure what
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:59:18PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:44:09 -0600
> Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:37:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:05:51 -0800
> > > Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Not sure what
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:44:09 -0600
Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:37:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:05:51 -0800
> > Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > > > Not sure what Andy was talking about, but I'm currently implementing
> > > > tracepoints to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:44:09 -0600
Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:37:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:05:51 -0800
> > Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > > > Not sure what Andy was talking about, but I'm currently implementing
> > > > tracepoints to
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:37:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:05:51 -0800
> Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > > Not sure what Andy was talking about, but I'm currently implementing
> > > tracepoints to use this, as tracepoints use indirect calls, and are a
> > > prime
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:37:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:05:51 -0800
> Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > > Not sure what Andy was talking about, but I'm currently implementing
> > > tracepoints to use this, as tracepoints use indirect calls, and are a
> > > prime
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:05:51 -0800
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Not sure what Andy was talking about, but I'm currently implementing
> > tracepoints to use this, as tracepoints use indirect calls, and are a
> > prime candidate for static calls, as I showed in my original RFC of
> > this feature.
>
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:05:51 -0800
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Not sure what Andy was talking about, but I'm currently implementing
> > tracepoints to use this, as tracepoints use indirect calls, and are a
> > prime candidate for static calls, as I showed in my original RFC of
> > this feature.
>
> On Nov 9, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:41:37 -0600
> Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:21:39AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:16:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28
> On Nov 9, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:41:37 -0600
> Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:21:39AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:16:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:41:37 -0600
Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:21:39AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:16:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > All other usecases
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:41:37 -0600
Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:21:39AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:16:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > All other usecases
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:21:39AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:16:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > All other usecases are bonus, but it would certainly be interesting to
> > > investigate the
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:21:39AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:16:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > All other usecases are bonus, but it would certainly be interesting to
> > > investigate the
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:16:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >
> > All other usecases are bonus, but it would certainly be interesting to
> > investigate the impact of using these APIs for tracing: that too is a
> > feature enabled
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:16:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >
> > All other usecases are bonus, but it would certainly be interesting to
> > investigate the impact of using these APIs for tracing: that too is a
> > feature enabled
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> >> These patches are related to two similar patch sets from Ard and Steve:
> >>
> >> -
> >>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> >> These patches are related to two similar patch sets from Ard and Steve:
> >>
> >> -
> >>
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> All other usecases are bonus, but it would certainly be interesting to
> investigate the impact of using these APIs for tracing: that too is a
> feature enabled everywhere but utilized only by a small fraction of Linux
> users - so
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> All other usecases are bonus, but it would certainly be interesting to
> investigate the impact of using these APIs for tracing: that too is a
> feature enabled everywhere but utilized only by a small fraction of Linux
> users - so
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
> > x86-64 only, which means we have to use the "unoptimized" version
> > everywhere else. I may experiment with a GCC plugin instead.
>
> I'd prefer the
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > - I'm not sure about the objtool approach. Objtool is (currently)
> > x86-64 only, which means we have to use the "unoptimized" version
> > everywhere else. I may experiment with a GCC plugin instead.
>
> I'd prefer the
On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
>> These patches are related to two similar patch sets from Ard and Steve:
>>
>> - https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181005081333.15018-1-ard.biesheu...@linaro.org
>> -
On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
>> These patches are related to two similar patch sets from Ard and Steve:
>>
>> - https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181005081333.15018-1-ard.biesheu...@linaro.org
>> -
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > - Does this feature have much value without retpolines? If not, should
> > we make it depend on retpolines somehow?
>
> Paravirt patching, as you mention in your later reply?
BTW., to look for candidates of this API, I'd suggest looking at the
function call
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > - Does this feature have much value without retpolines? If not, should
> > we make it depend on retpolines somehow?
>
> Paravirt patching, as you mention in your later reply?
BTW., to look for candidates of this API, I'd suggest looking at the
function call
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> These patches are related to two similar patch sets from Ard and Steve:
>
> - https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181005081333.15018-1-ard.biesheu...@linaro.org
> - https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181006015110.653946...@goodmis.org
>
> The code is also heavily inspired by the
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> These patches are related to two similar patch sets from Ard and Steve:
>
> - https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181005081333.15018-1-ard.biesheu...@linaro.org
> - https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181006015110.653946...@goodmis.org
>
> The code is also heavily inspired by the
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:15:50PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> - Does this feature have much value without retpolines? If not, should
> we make it depend on retpolines somehow?
I forgot Andy mentioned that we might be able to use this to clean up
paravirt patching, in which case it would
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:15:50PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> - Does this feature have much value without retpolines? If not, should
> we make it depend on retpolines somehow?
I forgot Andy mentioned that we might be able to use this to clean up
paravirt patching, in which case it would
These patches are related to two similar patch sets from Ard and Steve:
- https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181005081333.15018-1-ard.biesheu...@linaro.org
- https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181006015110.653946...@goodmis.org
The code is also heavily inspired by the jump label code, as some of the
concepts
These patches are related to two similar patch sets from Ard and Steve:
- https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181005081333.15018-1-ard.biesheu...@linaro.org
- https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181006015110.653946...@goodmis.org
The code is also heavily inspired by the jump label code, as some of the
concepts
56 matches
Mail list logo
