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
54 matches
Mail list logo