[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 0/8] jump-label: allow early jump_label_enable()
On 09/29/2011 05:52 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 16:26 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <>
>> One big question which arises is whether the _early() function is
>> necessary at all. All the stop_machine/mutex/etc stuff that
>> arch_jump_label_transform() ends up doing is redundant pre-SMP, but it
>> shouldn't hurt. Maybe we can just drop the _early function? It works
>> on x86, at least, because jump_label_enable() works, which uses the full
>> form. And dropping it would reduce this to a very much smaller series.
> It does slow down the boot process, which is not a good thing when
> everyone is pushing for the fastest restarts.

Would it really though? stop_machine() doesn't do very much when there
are no other cpus.

Not that I measured or anything, but there was no obvious big lag at boot.

> What we should probably do is have a global read_mostly variable called,
> smp_activated or something, then things that can be called before and
> after can read this variable to determine if it can skip certain
> protections.

Could do that if it turns out to be a problem.

> While we're at it, perhaps we could add a memory_initialized for things
> like tracers that want to trace early but need to wait till it can
> allocate buffers. If we had this flag, it could instead do an early
> memory init to create the buffers.

That seems orthogonal to the jump_label changes.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-30 06:43    [W:0.078 / U:8.248 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site