[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXF8makQnZaWDpyzQc2ZiwQEU1ACYhrA91UaFT6S-6RXaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 11:24:12 +0100
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
"Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] jump_label: refine placement of static_keys
On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 at 09:36, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 05:09:06PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> >
> > With CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL=y, "struct static_key" content is only
> > used for the control path.
> >
> > Marking them __read_mostly is only needed when CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL=n.
> > Otherwise we place them out of the way to increase data locality.
> >
> > This patch adds __static_key to centralize this new policy.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 4 ++--
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 2 +-
> > include/linux/jump_label.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++--------
> > kernel/events/core.c | 2 +-
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
> > net/core/dev.c | 8 ++++----
> > net/netfilter/core.c | 2 +-
> > net/netfilter/x_tables.c | 2 +-
> > 8 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Hurmph, it's a bit cumbersome to always have to add this __static_key
> attribute to every definition, and in fact you seem to have missed some.
>
> Would something like:
>
> typedef struct static_key __static_key static_key_t;
>
> work? I forever seem to forget the exact things you can make a typedef
> do :/
No, that doesn't work. Section placement is an attribute of the symbol
not of its type. So we'll need to macro'ify this.
But I'm not sure I understand why we need different policies here.
Static keys are inherently __read_mostly (unless they are not writable
to begin with), so keeping them all together in one place in the
binary should be sufficient, no?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists