lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 13/15] x86/static_call: Add inline static call implementation for x86-64
Date
> On Jun 10, 2019, at 11:33 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 03:08:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/static_call.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/static_call.h
>> @@ -2,6 +2,20 @@
>> #ifndef _ASM_STATIC_CALL_H
>> #define _ASM_STATIC_CALL_H
>>
>> +#include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL_INLINE
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * This trampoline is only used during boot / module init, so it's safe to use
>> + * the indirect branch without a retpoline.
>> + */
>> +#define __ARCH_STATIC_CALL_TRAMP_JMP(key, func) \
>> + ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE \
>> + "jmpq *" __stringify(key) "+" __stringify(SC_KEY_func) "(%rip) \n"
>> +
>> +#else /* !CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL_INLINE */
>
> I wonder if we can simplify this (and drop the indirect branch) by
> getting rid of the above cruft, and instead just use the out-of-line
> trampoline as the default for inline as well.
>
> Then the inline case could fall back to the out-of-line implementation
> (by patching the trampoline's jmp dest) before static_call_initialized
> is set.

I must be missing some context - but what guarantees that this indirect
branch would be exactly 5 bytes long? Isn’t there an assumption that this
would be the case? Shouldn’t there be some handling of the padding?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-10 20:46    [W:0.099 / U:0.800 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site