From: Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org, jbaron@akamai.com, ardb@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sumit.garg@linaro.org,
oliver.sang@intel.com, jarkko@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] static_call: Fix static_call_update() sanity check
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:07:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YFiWqvEsswDHBDPX@gunter> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210319140005.7ececb11@gandalf.local.home>
+++ Steven Rostedt [19/03/21 14:00 -0400]:
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:57:38 +0100
>Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
>> Jessica, can you explain how !MODULE_UNLOAD is supposed to work?
>> Alternatives, jump_labels and static_call all can have relocations into
>> __exit code. Not loading it at all would be BAD.
>
>According to the description:
>
>" Without this option you will not be able to unload any
> modules (note that some modules may not be unloadable anyway), which
> makes your kernel smaller, faster and simpler.
> If unsure, say Y."
>
>Seems there's no reason to load the "exit" portion, as that's what makes it
>"smaller".
Exactly. If you disable MODULE_UNLOAD, then you don't intend to ever
unload any modules, and so you'll never end up calling the module's
cleanup/exit function. That code would basically be never used, so
that's why it's not loaded in the first place.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-22 13:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-18 11:31 [PATCH 0/3] static_call() vs __exit fixes Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-18 11:31 ` [PATCH 1/3] static_call: Fix static_call_set_init() Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-19 12:25 ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-18 11:31 ` [PATCH 2/3] static_call: Align static_call_is_init() patching condition Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-19 12:25 ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-19 13:31 ` [PATCH 2/3] " Rasmus Villemoes
2021-03-19 14:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-19 14:40 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2021-03-19 15:44 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2021-03-22 16:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-18 11:31 ` [PATCH 3/3] static_call: Fix static_call_update() sanity check Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-18 11:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-18 16:13 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-03-18 16:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-19 12:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-19 18:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-03-19 19:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-19 20:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-03-22 14:50 ` Jessica Yu
2021-03-22 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-22 17:36 ` Jessica Yu
2021-03-22 13:07 ` Jessica Yu [this message]
2021-03-22 14:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-19 12:25 ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-18 12:15 ` [PATCH 0/3] static_call() vs __exit fixes Sumit Garg
2021-03-18 19:38 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
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=YFiWqvEsswDHBDPX@gunter \
--to=jeyu@kernel.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sumit.garg@linaro.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