[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <488c98ae-9d73-6d42-712b-8d8c031ebf8a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 17:43:10 -0800
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman9394@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 07/18] x86/smt: Convert cpu_smt_control check to
cpu_smt_enabled static key
On 11/03/2018 11:29 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Tim,
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
>
>> Change the SMT code paths check from using cpu_smt_control to
>> cpu_smt_enabled static key. This saves a branching check.
>
> and adds extra size to the kernel for the patching. The only reason why it
> would make sense for kvm is that then the EXPORT of cpu_smt_control can go
> away, which takes more space than the patch data.
>
Should I just drop this patch then and only replace
sched_smt_present with cpu_smt_enabled?
Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists