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: <20190827180622.159326993@infradead.org> <20190827181147.166658077@infradead.org>
 <aaffb32f-6ca9-f9e3-9b1a-627125c563ed@redhat.com> <20191002182106.GC4643@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20191003181045.7fb1a5b3@gandalf.local.home> <20191004112237.GA19463@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20191004094228.5a5774fe@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20191004094228.5a5774fe@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:36:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJ0cWYPY-+FhZoqUZ8p1k1FiDsO5jhXiQdcCPmd1UeCyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/ftrace: Use text_poke()
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 6:45 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 13:22:37 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 06:10:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > But still, we are going from 120 to 660 IPIs for every CPU. Not saying
> > > it's a problem, but something that we should note. Someone (those that
> > > don't like kernel interference) may complain.
> >
> > It is machine wide function tracing, interference is going to happen..
> > :-)
> >
> > Anyway, we can grow the batch size if sufficient benefit can be shown to
> > exist.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking that we just go with these patches and then fix
> the IPI issue when someone starts complaining ;-)
>
> Anyway, is this series ready to go? I can pull them in (I guess I
> should get an ack from Thomas or Ingo as they are x86 specific). I'm
> currently working on code that affects the same code paths as this
> patch, and would like to build my changes on top of this, instead of
> monkeying around with major conflicts.

What is the status of this set ?
Steven, did you apply it ?