From: Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@amazon.de>,
sironi@amazon.de, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Reduce retpoline performance impact in slot_handle_level_range()
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 21:23:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180202212321.5186c13c@alans-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1517599033.31953.71.camel@infradead.org>
> Either way, that does look like a reasonable answer. I had looked at
> the various one-line wrappers around slot_handle_level_range() and
> thought "hm, those should be inline", but I hadn't made the next step
> and pondered putting the whole thing inline. We'll give it a spin and
> work out where the next performance bottleneck is. Thanks.
In addition the problem with switch() is that gcc might decide in some
cases that the best way to implement your switch is an indirect call
from a lookup table.
For the simple case how about wrapping the if into
call_likely(foo->bar, usualfunction, args)
as a companion to
foo->bar(args)
that can resolve to nothing special on architectures that don't need it,
an if/else case on platforms with spectre, and potentially clever
stuff on any platform where you can beat the compiler by knowing
probabilities it can't infer ?
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-02 21:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-02 14:59 [PATCH] KVM: x86: Reduce retpoline performance impact in slot_handle_level_range() David Woodhouse
2018-02-02 15:43 ` Sironi, Filippo
2018-02-02 21:10 ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-02-02 21:14 ` David Woodhouse
2018-02-02 18:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-02-02 19:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-02-02 19:17 ` David Woodhouse
2018-02-02 21:23 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2018-02-03 14:46 ` David Woodhouse
2018-02-05 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-05 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-05 15:15 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180202212321.5186c13c@alans-desktop \
--to=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=karahmed@amazon.de \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sironi@amazon.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox