[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <481639D2.7040306@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:55:46 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, zdenek.kabelac@...il.com,
rjw@...k.pl, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
penberg@...helsinki.fi, clameter@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pageexec@...email.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: fix text_poke
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> And once we accept the static
> markers, we might as well make them as cheap as possible.
Sure, so long as you take "as cheap as possible" to mean cheap in both
implementation complexity as well as runtime cost.
I don't have any specific objections to any of the stuff that Mathieu is
working on, but it does worry me that each time a problem is addressed
it ends up being an even more subtle piece of code. I just haven't seen
enough concrete justification to make me feel comfortable with it all.
It seems to me that a relatively simple implementation which allows the
desired tracing/marking functionality is the first step. If that proves
to cause a significant performance deficit then enabled then we can work
out how to address it in due course. But doing it all at once before
merging anything seems like overkill, particularly when we're talking
about specifics of gcc's codegen patterns, disassembling code fragments,
etc.
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists