From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D26B2C2D0A3 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:55:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48AC52076E for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:55:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="mRwtsm4u"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="m4UyYC8h" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 48AC52076E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=bMEEEVSPpqShRmPQyAl1wpnaasv2iG/q4RyNbN11ozg=; b=mRwtsm4uGt36KvIcjcEavnF3I jerctUNMTH2V0MCx6jDV2GEtaNmYIl5oFJXExDhv56eFtppRFL2B0Kqi5l2X6e0oD6GFCJtw8RoWe TbbjMDFM20f3504Nun1NbMHoOgd3Lwptf1tpc/oqm0nVHVtzMpkGIgBGmkBLzpI6N1AgWFcWsVCpz KOuF/1RF1zKv0hNVX8ol7XdYJ0LRZKQeFiyi4s0PKHbQio4+8ClZ4JdiY+DHYmwyDKud9VGNtAdAX 1+zRUPhLsqIuI/GW1OJqIX/fhfnjJudsHdKkwu3b46+mzU9aECBMcY1lBD3F3wyyuDUwaWm+K61j0 V22J8O04w==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kY6W3-0004oR-A8; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:54:51 +0000 Received: from mail-wr1-x441.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::441]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kY6W0-0004nd-3I for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:54:49 +0000 Received: by mail-wr1-x441.google.com with SMTP id b8so2472670wrn.0 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:54:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=6PPBir92Wipbl2wbOBejZazm3o6tAhE5vtqAASaUmDc=; b=m4UyYC8hv1AOyymMyWukmVAOiQBPYo9210ZHeBiOTRG0E66tW7i18sOqRPziEvBBf8 uXhuJCvEjCHtgoRDeLi/wKC6xSUg8cSnMr15thFjyVcHadNqTLHVX3wyBGmpmIyELEr4 sre2VlsvS844kxQQqSAtvCBsb7x8X7TnA9YevOrvh18U4I1iUjE2AcTdf+WgC/mWtqtv KicVXlI230qWJy9nlGOOUfSnqf2X477DP2e5pbffLiIrl0q2eWKa3G6A36Qwuh+PMTFL J5ZAfkT83EhCtxCMhlznyt2qAHHc59/UtykWd5Y7VGYVuObIJFoReyDVX3fVuBrXL+nn xgfQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=6PPBir92Wipbl2wbOBejZazm3o6tAhE5vtqAASaUmDc=; b=NBrdMt8wbsXnQFYKKtPJvruo8DBdCmIPb1Be/plhdbdPo1N6/53cVJ9ec4wy5uanQt yqcqV1qr8IWDcBWJsrh4DylRa80SOD7Xzmww3XzOLMhoiS1ru21XuvCPVYwX5bUNHj42 WVJrCKRb//p/aS8GdMJnAJ1L0ObJTPD5A22nMQuoP3OoBKUms9Uvt3HzqqRLRNpJOP1n Va1ZZjZXT7/IGQFjz0RH63z6dVuKAIzfT5/9RE2D5RVTLqkoeESDDphLbxrp9i/2rKuq HSYVIJByCazuubIhRXR9n4GaQ9NvEYsiT4hl8ZvzSUeZCG7L3vANm5v/TGFN3Wj0smpN UsOA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532zirdGZ5gdvJDA9EGknJnvn1AkYb1a8e9YagsDpUG+w1f95agC +zex99+8cH0fQGRaWpnePPr0Ww== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxc4q0Jk2/4biyb4aeyXRkDk5t5RMBogvM0EM77vtgxfiUhV9SxMR4i7paZW2B3prquEwrp0A== X-Received: by 2002:adf:dd89:: with SMTP id x9mr5089540wrl.284.1603972487048; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2a00:79e0:d:210:f693:9fff:fef4:a7ef]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u202sm4181009wmu.23.2020.10.29.04.54.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:54:42 +0000 From: Quentin Perret To: Ard Biesheuvel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: implement support for static call trampolines Message-ID: <20201029115442.GA4092571@google.com> References: <20201028184114.6834-1-ardb@kernel.org> <20201029112747.GA4090840@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201029_075448_258868_75D07AA9 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 18.31 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , Peter Zijlstra , Catalin Marinas , James Morse , Will Deacon , Linux ARM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thursday 29 Oct 2020 at 12:32:50 (+0100), Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > We'll need tooling along the lines of the GCC plugin I wrote [0] to > implement inline static calls - doing function calls from inline > assembly is too messy, too fragile and too error prone to rely on. Right, and that is the gut feeling I had too, but I can't quite put my finger on what exactly can go wrong. Any pointers? > However, as I discussed with Will offline yesterday as well, the > question that got snowed under is whether we need any of this on arm64 > in the first place. It seems highly unlikely that inline static calls > are worth it, and even out-of-line static calls are probably not worth > the hassle as we don't have the retpoline problem. > > So this code should be considered an invitation for discussion, and > perhaps someone can invent a use case where benchmarks can show a > worthwhile improvement. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The reason I'm interested in this is because Android makes heavy use of trace points/hooks, so any potential improvement in this area would be welcome. Now I agree we need numbers to show the benefit is real before this can be considered for inclusion in the kernel. I'll try and see if we can get something. Thanks, Quentin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel