From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08BCC18DB17 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2025 07:48:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743752917; cv=none; b=ADMYQH0fyTheyrOD/EjCYPnHOq1tSqjdCNP6nKc+DGWGDsHI59zeh4+5ZaMhppx1Vs4A8liuyo2GJfhb/nTAfYHZJSCXAPF38wdSVZnLq3KiA3eFDKmIb23XzNzQmMK+wNcc3NOqp4RcM+ekAbUvGrH83b7JS6yLHSfVOEo6xT8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743752917; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CggumWzxewmLNe6/7zWOIz/yXabrVY8+bwcCUS29nes=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FlaApDdrbpKSPXmr+K+4ZuMrzngKJ5wV2Bu2iNp5pdwZI8aNjebTkUZsdnSjXzEmQJBDnBR4bH7epIkaC02sJ+tMh0R0mZwYJnrIAom+pQMevhoCR/dMvQJYp6eOFvIKs9fVHwdVxQsmkyK4nDLjQ7HM1pPsa2z+n3b4Yx8EqaU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=MLDsnxuu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="MLDsnxuu" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72F19C4CEDD; Fri, 4 Apr 2025 07:48:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1743752916; bh=CggumWzxewmLNe6/7zWOIz/yXabrVY8+bwcCUS29nes=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=MLDsnxuuEPdlHegCEfs47SZkZEnwIe++gVXWTHG6u9GnbDWts0vxVxEGZNGVv7wNK D1RPgG4Rf7GQK5dJt596A1oFh0/OuxaAn5edtf11ra4jsc4xwqp/0YQ70B1USuFnPl fHAzFSLa86fnw0RAYiF+ie/wUchrs0dUJPLbh+AQb3ZJt6xtnHyIAZU41nqo/zaJZR +p6B+0ELwi2xT1Wr6pYg5sBMZN7FK0XJF61c/StbmG3d9Q1I9NRLgc4giQydlvsm3l GXBCrxf08OPvdGXAsA7N654DGURLs04edIf7H943mmvfslekwxFpy0jgEJboMGgr2u cNu3bH1i97gmQ== Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 09:48:31 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Nikolay Borisov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juergen Gross , "H . Peter Anvin" , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Borislav Petkov , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 37/49] x86/alternatives: Move text_poke_array completion from smp_text_poke_batch_finish() and smp_text_poke_batch_flush() to smp_text_poke_batch_process() Message-ID: References: <20250328132704.1901674-1-mingo@kernel.org> <20250328132704.1901674-38-mingo@kernel.org> <65e8ed9d-0fff-4f70-b095-8df52493ebec@suse.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: * Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > Yeah, it doesn't change semantics, but it's a very small > > deoptimization. > > > Mind sending a patch? It does simplify the facility some more and that > > single branch will wash away against costs like the CR3 flushes done > > Given that poke_batch_finish does a cond_resched and sync_each_cpu > which is an IPI can it even be considered a performance critical path > ? Probably not, but even if it was, I think your change would still be an overall win, so please send a changelogged patch against WIP.x86/alternatives. Thanks, Ingo