[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181005112010.GC10285@zn.tnic>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:20:10 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
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 Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:31:08AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are you using defconfig or a reasonable distro-config for your tests?
> >
> > I think it is best to take the kernel and run localyesconfig for testing.
>
> Ok, agreed - and this makes the numbers you provided pretty representative.
>
> Good - now that all of my concerns were addressed I'd like to merge the remaining 3 patches as
> well - but they are conflicting with ongoing x86 work in tip:x86/core. The extable conflict is
> trivial, the jump-label conflict a bit more involved.
FWIW, gcc guys are not too averse to the idea of enhancing gcc inline
asm syntax with a statement which specifies its size so that gcc can use
it to do better inlining cost estimation than counting lines.
Lemme work the process ...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists