lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:44:09 -0600
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:37:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:05:51 -0800
> > Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Not sure what Andy was talking about, but I'm currently implementing
> > > > tracepoints to use this, as tracepoints use indirect calls, and are a
> > > > prime candidate for static calls, as I showed in my original RFC of
> > > > this feature.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > Although I had assumed that tracepoints already had appropriate jump label magic.
> >
> > It does. But that's not the problem I was trying to solve. It's that
> > tracing took a 8% noise dive with retpolines when enabled (hackbench
> > slowed down by 8% with all the trace events enabled compared to all
> > trace events enabled without retpoline). That is, normal users (those
> > not tracinng) are not affected by trace events slowing down by
> > retpoline. Those that care about performance when they are tracing, are
> > affected by retpoline, quite drastically.
> >
> > I'm doing another test run and measurements, to see how the unoptimized
> > trampolines help, followed by the trampoline case.
>
> Are you sure you're using unoptimized? Optimized is the default on
> x86-64 (with my third patch).
>

Yes, because I haven't applied that third patch yet ;-)

Then I'll apply it and see how much that improves things.

-- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-09 21:00    [W:0.101 / U:7.632 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site