Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1541711457.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com> <20181109072811.GB86700@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181109072811.GB86700@gmail.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 9 Nov 2018 07:16:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrU3tPPOiuTaLqUy-L4sPvZRU8BLYML-BgQH_LZhA4bzSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> All other usecases are bonus, but it would certainly be interesting to
> investigate the impact of using these APIs for tracing: that too is a
> feature enabled everywhere but utilized only by a small fraction of Linux
> users - so literally every single cycle or instruction saved or hot-path
> shortened is a major win.

For tracing, we'd want static_call_set_to_nop() or something like that, right?

--Andy