[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181006093905.46276505@vmware.local.home>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:39:05 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Matthew Helsley <mhelsley@...are.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [POC][RFC][PATCH 1/2] jump_function: Addition of new feature
"jump_function"
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:12:11 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 09:51:11PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > +#define arch_dynfunc_trampoline(name, def) \
> > + asm volatile ( \
> > + ".globl dynfunc_" #name "; \n\t" \
> > + "dynfunc_" #name ": \n\t" \
> > + "jmp " #def " \n\t" \
> > + ".balign 8 \n \t" \
> > + : : : "memory" )
>
> Bah, what is it with you people and trampolines. Why can't we, just like
> jump_label, patch the call directly?
>
> The whole call+jmp thing is silly, don't do that. It just wrecks I$ and
> is slower for no real reason afaict.
My first attempt was to do just that. But to add a label at the
call site required handling all the parameters too. See my branch:
ftrace/jump_function-v1 for how ugly it got (and it didn't work).
>
> Steve, also see:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181005081333.15018-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
Interesting. I don't have time to look at it at the moment to see what
was done, but will do so in the near future.
Remember, this was a proof of concept and even with the trampolines, it
showed a great level of improvement. One thought was to do a
"recordmcount.c" type of action to find where the calls were and patch
them directly at boot up. I tried to keep the API the same where this
could actually be done as an improvement later.
Perhaps a gcc plugin might work too.
I'll have to see what Ard did to handle the function parameters.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists