From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: "Jürgen Groß" <jgross@suse.com>,
"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@kernel.org>,
"Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@kernel.org>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/pat: fix effective RW computation in lookup_address_in_pgd_attr()
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 06:50:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adecc483-ca7e-4c03-ab35-88a0400a4867@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aljgOjRTV9xxRubI@kernel.org>
On 7/16/26 06:44, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> What does "slower" mean here?
>
> I've seen ~2% difference per set_memory call in instrumented cpa-test.
>
>> Does it matter in _practice_? Does it measurably slow down something an
>> end user might see?
> Yes, if a user is loading/unloading a BPF program in a tight loop 🙂
IMNHO, it may be worth optimizing if you can measure the difference in
BPF program load times (even in a tight loop).
But if set_memory() is the only thing you can measure a delta in, I'm
less convinced.
It's really sounding to me like we should do the simplest thing for a
bug fix and then arm wrestle later about how to micro-optimize the sucker.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-16 13:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-16 8:10 [PATCH] x86/mm/pat: fix effective RW computation in lookup_address_in_pgd_attr() Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)
2026-07-16 8:37 ` Jürgen Groß
2026-07-16 8:46 ` Juergen Gross
2026-07-16 9:18 ` Mike Rapoport
2026-07-16 12:35 ` David Laight
2026-07-16 12:46 ` Juergen Gross
2026-07-16 12:49 ` David Laight
2026-07-16 12:55 ` Jürgen Groß
2026-07-16 13:27 ` Dave Hansen
2026-07-16 13:44 ` Mike Rapoport
2026-07-16 13:50 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
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=adecc483-ca7e-4c03-ab35-88a0400a4867@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.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