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 Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FF7DC433FE for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 21:09:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Mk3wK6hgsz3dtN for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 08:09:21 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org (client-ip=63.228.1.57; helo=gate.crashing.org; envelope-from=segher@kernel.crashing.org; receiver=) Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Mk3vk27gKz2xZ7 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 08:08:49 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 296L4PHf020257; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 16:04:25 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 296L4OZK020256; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 16:04:24 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 16:04:23 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Christophe Leroy Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] powerpc/64: Add support for out-of-line static calls Message-ID: <20221006210423.GV25951@gate.crashing.org> References: <20221005053234.29312-1-bgray@linux.ibm.com> <20221005053234.29312-6-bgray@linux.ibm.com> <878rltpyy1.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> <20221006182254.GR25951@gate.crashing.org> <2bb8accb-30c0-67e6-7ad5-36c02d46a2cd@csgroup.eu> <20221006204533.GU25951@gate.crashing.org> <0c92ba89-4cad-524a-4c02-8064d451b7b6@csgroup.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <0c92ba89-4cad-524a-4c02-8064d451b7b6@csgroup.eu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "ajd@linux.ibm.com" , "peterz@infradead.org" , "rostedt@goodmis.org" , "ardb@kernel.org" , "jbaron@akamai.com" , "npiggin@gmail.com" , Benjamin Gray , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "jpoimboe@kernel.org" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 08:50:31PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Le 06/10/2022 à 22:45, Segher Boessenkool a écrit : > > I meant just an indicative code size number... 100 bytes, 100kB, 100MB, > > or something like that :-) And, on 64 bit, which is what the question > > was about! > > Ah, does the size really matters here ? I was thinking more in terms of > performance when I made the comment. Other than some unused code there should not be much performance impact at all from enabling modules when not needed, on 64 bit. Security (in depth) is a very different kettle of fish of course ;-) Segher