[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191007111742.00d6c50b@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 11:17:42 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
bristot@...hat.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
namit@...are.com, hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
hjl.tools@...il.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Variable size jump_label support
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 13:26:06 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> [ Sorry, fixed the Cc:lkml line. ]
/me joining the fun.
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > These here patches are something I've been poking at for a while,
> > enabling jump_label to use 2 byte jumps/nops.
> >
> > It _almost_ works :-/
> >
> > That is, you can build some kernels with it (x86_64-defconfig for
> > example works just fine).
> >
> > The problem comes when GCC generates a branch into another section,
> > mostly .text.unlikely. At that point GAS just gives up and throws a fit
> > (more details in the last patch).
> >
> > Aside from anyone coming up with a really clever GAS trick, I don't see
> > how we can do this other than:
>
> > - use 'jmp' and get objtool to rewrite the text. Steven has earlier proposed
> > something like that (using recordmcount) and Linus hated that.
>
> As long as GCC+GAS correctly generates a 2-byte or 5-byte JMP depending
> on the target distance, the objtool solution should work fine, shouldn't
> it?
>
> I can see the recordmcount solution sucking, it would depend on early
> kernel patchery. But build time patchery is something we already depend
> on, so assuming some objtool catastrophy it's a more robust solution,
> isn't it?
>
Actually, even back then I said that it would be best to merge all the
tools into one (I just didn't have the time to implement it), and then
we could pull this off. I have one of my developers working to merge
record-mcount into objtool now (there's been some patches floating
around).
Then with a single tool, it shouldn't be controversial.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists