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:   Fri, 27 Aug 2021 11:04:36 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc: Investigate static_call concept
Message-ID: <20210827160436.GQ1583@gate.crashing.org>
References: <8077899fee81f08a7dffbf185569d3a1f7a2ab68.1630057495.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> <YSj0R6g6HeboSk9n@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YSj0R6g6HeboSk9n@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 04:18:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 09:45:37AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > This RFC is to validate the concept of static_call on powerpc.
> > 
> > Highly copied from x86.
> > 
> > It replaces ppc_md.get_irq() which is called at every IRQ, by
> > a static call.
> 
> The code looks saner, but does it actually improve performance? I'm
> thinking the double branch also isn't free.

It isn't, but it is very cheap, while the branch-to-count is not, even
*if* it is correctly predicted.

> The paranoid in me would've made it:
> 
> 	BUG_ON(patch_branch(...));
> 
> just to make sure to notice the target not fitting. Ohh, patch_branch()
> doesn't return the create_branch() error, perhaps that wants to be
> fixed?

Should that be allowed to fail ever?  I.e., should a failure be a fatal
error?  Sounds very fragile otherwise.


Segher