xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] jump_label: if a key has already been
To: |
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> |
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] jump_label: if a key has already been initialized, don't nop it out |
From: |
Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:10:28 -0400 |
Cc: |
Xen Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Glauber <jang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael Ellerman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Delivery-date: |
Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:15:33 -0700 |
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
In-reply-to: |
<4E934E5B.3000603@xxxxxxxx> |
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
References: |
<cover.1317506051.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx> <477dead9647029012f93c651f2892ed0e86b89e7.1317506051.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx> <20111010153631.GA2413@xxxxxxxxxx> <4E934E5B.3000603@xxxxxxxx> |
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) |
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:58:19PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just realized that the early call to jump_label_inc(), isn't being
> > honored with this patch until later when we invoke jump_label_init().
> > That strikes me as being inconsistent. When jump_label_inc() returns we
> > should expect the branch to be updated.
>
> Why is that? It looks to me like it will unconditionally update the
> instruction, irrespective of whether _init() has been called?
>
No. jump_label_init(), sets up key->entries, to point into the jump
table...before that jump_label_update(), doesn't know where the table is
located, and will just return, without doing the update.
> > Thus, I think what probably want is to add a new 'int jump_label_init'
> > flag. If its not set we can call 'jump_label_init()' from
> > jump_label_inc()/dec().
>
> Hm. I worry that it may end up calling jump_label_init() in an
> unexpected context, especially since it may well be config-dependent, or
> adding a jump_label_inc() later on starts mysteriously failing.
good point.
>
> > And jump_label_init() can avoid initialization
> > if its already set.
>
> That doesn't seem worthwhile in itself. I suspect the number of "early"
> jump_label_incs will be very small (or we should look at doing the init
> earlier).
>
> J
I have it as 'early_initcall()', but perhaps it should be moved into
init/main.c. I don't think there's any reason it can't be done super
early. So I think this might be the best answer. It will also simplify
your series.
Thanks,
-Jason
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|