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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211110010906.1923210-1-eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
 <20211110010906.1923210-3-eric.dumazet@gmail.com> <YYuEXQ7Ur9f88pCw@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <YYuEXQ7Ur9f88pCw@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Nov 2021 07:30:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CANn89iLSvNzgDc4s5rv65eELx2fGVzb6Nj=8D7T3Up8Wgsm_SA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] jump_label: refine placement of static_keys
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
        jbaron@akamai.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, ardb@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:35 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 05:09:06PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> >
> > With CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL=y, "struct static_key" content is only
> > used for the control path.
> >
> > Marking them __read_mostly is only needed when CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL=n.
> > Otherwise we place them out of the way to increase data locality.
> >
> > This patch adds __static_key to centralize this new policy.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c       |  4 ++--
> >  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c         |  2 +-
> >  include/linux/jump_label.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++--------
> >  kernel/events/core.c       |  2 +-
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c        |  2 +-
> >  net/core/dev.c             |  8 ++++----
> >  net/netfilter/core.c       |  2 +-
> >  net/netfilter/x_tables.c   |  2 +-
> >  8 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Hurmph, it's a bit cumbersome to always have to add this __static_key
> attribute to every definition, and in fact you seem to have missed some.

Sure, I can make sure to include all cases. I was hoping
DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE()/DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE()
would catch the majority of uses.

We also can add a new DEFINE_STATIC_KEY() macro to ease these cases.


>
> Would something like:
>
>         typedef struct static_key __static_key static_key_t;
>
> work? I forever seem to forget the exact things you can make a typedef
> do :/

I tried, but a typedef was not working. A macro would work.