[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1AF87411-7E98-4FD7-B3D8-F4C6423F24AE@amacapital.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 08:13:18 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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 Oct 6, 2018, at 6:39 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
My suggestion was to have objtool do the dirty work. Josh said something suspiciously like “sounds fun” on IRC :)
> I'll have to see what Ard did to handle the function parameters.
>
> -- Steve
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists