Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 9 Mar 2021 22:24:44 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: The killing of ideal_nops[]
Message-ID: <YEfnnFUbizbJUQig@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <YEepKVHc5kkDybu6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210309120519.7c6bbb97@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210309120519.7c6bbb97@gandalf.local.home>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:05:19PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 17:58:17 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > AFAICT everything made in the past 10 years ends up using p6_nops. Is it
> > time to kill off ideal_nops[] and simplify life?
> > 
> 
> Well, the one bug that was reported recently was due to a box that uses a
> different "ideal_nops" than p6_nops. Perhaps we should ask him if there's
> any noticeable difference between using p6_nops for every function than the
> ideal_nops that as found for that box.

If the machine is more than a decade old, I'm not really caring about
optimal performance. If it is 32bit, I really couldn't be arsed as long
as it boots.