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;
Date:   Fri, 9 Nov 2018 14:36:24 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls
Message-ID: <20181109203624.ubfvpfunaydnjkjk@treble>
References: <cover.1541711457.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <20181109072811.GB86700@gmail.com>
 <CALCETrU3tPPOiuTaLqUy-L4sPvZRU8BLYML-BgQH_LZhA4bzSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181109152139.zig45f6gp24btfbc@treble>
 <20181109164137.5cngbfrkm4ihj4ra@treble>
 <20181109134241.5f4ce3be@gandalf.local.home>
 <979DB163-EFBD-41BB-8481-155AAF526E72@amacapital.net>
 <20181109143703.5f2205bf@gandalf.local.home>
 <20181109194409.mnrzdee6gh4ujutm@treble>
 <20181109145918.28df6616@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181109145918.28df6616@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:59:18PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.

Ah, good.  That will be interesting to see the difference between
optimized/unoptimized.

-- 
Josh