[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190108205341.GO6118@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 12:53:41 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
songliubraving@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/6] x86: dynamic indirect branch promotion
> BTW: I am not sure that static-keys are much better. Their change also
> affects the control flow, and they do affect the control flow.
Static keys have the same problem, but they only change infrequently so usually
it's not too big a problem if you dump the kernel close to the tracing
sessions.
simple-pt doesn't have a similar mechanism, so it suffers more from it.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists