[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b66a2657-6ad0-6126-f308-be8d70f714c1@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:08:25 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/10] x86: refcount: prevent gcc distortions
On 10/04/18 13:05, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
> Funny. Immediate-patching is what I was playing with when I encountered the
> gcc issue. Performance got worse instead of improving (or at least staying
> the same), because inlining got crazy.
>
> Anyhow, wait for my soon-to-be-sent RFC in which I define a macro called
> “call” (to reduce the retpoline overhead) before you talk about damage to
> the eyes.
>
Doing it well is *hard*, as I discovered. The actual patch is much,
much, larger.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists