Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220712183238.844813653@linuxfoundation.org> <CA+G9fYtntg7=zWSs-dm+n_AUr_u0eBOU0zrwWqMeXZ+SF6_bLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <eb63e4ce-843f-c840-060e-6e15defd3c4d@roeck-us.net> <CAHk-=wj5cOA+fbGeV15kvwe6YGT54Wsk8F2UGoekVQLTPJz_pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgq1soM4gudypWLVQdYuvJbXn38LtvJMtnLZX+RTypqLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Ys/bYJ2bLVfNBjFI@nazgul.tnic> <6b4337f4-d1de-7ba3-14e8-3ad0f9b18788@redhat.com>
 <8BEC3365-FC09-46C5-8211-518657C0308E@alien8.de> <CAHk-=wj4vtoWZPMXJU-B9qW1zLHsoA1Qb2P0NW=UFhZmrCrf9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <YtBQutgSh2j3mFNB@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAHk-=wjAouqJQ=C4XZVUmWEV9kerNzbOkK9OeErpHshNkcR=gQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjAouqJQ=C4XZVUmWEV9kerNzbOkK9OeErpHshNkcR=gQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jul 2022 11:16:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whYia1fnjJFiJ59xZv4ROqqTfG4crQNWxb71JYJf5B-Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/78] 5.15.55-rc1 review
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Boris Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>,
        Slade Watkins <slade@sladewatkins.com>, patches@kernelci.org,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org,
        =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBCZW5uw6ll?= <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Oh, btw, how bad would it be to just do

     #define FASTOP_SIZE 16
     static_assert(FASTOP_SIZE >= FASTOP_LENGTH)

and leave it at that?

Afaik both gcc and clang default to -falign-functions=16 *anyway*, and
while on 32-bit x86 we have options to minimize alignment, we don't do
that on x86-64 afaik.

In fact, we have an option to force *bigger* alignment
(DEBUG_FORCE_FUNCTION_ALIGN_64B) but not any way to make it less.

And we use

        .p2align 4

in most of our asm, aling with

    #define __ALIGN          .p2align 4, 0x90

So all the *normal* functions already get 16-byte alignment anyway.

So yeah, it would be less dense, but do we care? Wouldn't the "this is
really simple" be a nice thing? It's not like there are a ton of those
fastop functions anyway. 128 of them? Plus 16 of the "setCC" ones?

               Linus