[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f6dbe42651e84278b44e44ed7d0ed74f@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 10:46:42 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
CC: Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"dvyukov@...gle.com" <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"mbenes@...e.cz" <mbenes@...e.cz>,
"llvm@...ts.linux.dev" <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org" <linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 20/22] x86,word-at-a-time: Remove .fixup usage
From: Peter Zijlstra
> Sent: 09 November 2021 21:08
...
>
> GCC does the same, but I wanted to have the exception stuff be in
> .text.cold, but alas it doesn't do that. I left the attribute because of
> it's descriptive value.
>
> > Unless the cold attribute is helping move
> > ("shrink-wrap"?) the basic block to a whole other section
> > (.text.cold.)?
>
> I was hoping it would do that, but it doesn't on gcc-11.
Wouldn't moving part of a function to .text.cold (or .text.unlikely)
generate the same problems with the stack backtrace code as the
.text.fixup section you are removing had??
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists