Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Jan 2019 14:31:09 -0600 | From | Josh Poimboeuf <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 0/6] x86: dynamic indirect branch promotion |
| |
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 06:30:08PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 07:53:06PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > >>> On Dec 31, 2018, at 11:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 11:20 PM Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote: > >>>> This is a revised version of optpolines (formerly named retpolines) for > >>>> dynamic indirect branch promotion in order to reduce retpoline overheads > >>>> [1]. > >>> > >>> Some of your changelogs still call them "relpolines". > >>> > >>> I have a crazy suggestion: maybe don't give them a cute name at all? > >>> Where it's actually necessary to name them (like in a config option), > >>> use a description like CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEVIRTUALIZATION or > >>> CONFIG_PATCH_INDIRECT_CALLS or something. > > > > Cute or not, naming is important. > > > > If you want a description instead of a name, it will be a challenge to > > describe it in 2-3 words. > > > > I have no idea what "dynamic devirtualization" means. > > > > "Patch indirect calls" doesn't fully describe it either (and could be > > easily confused with static calls and some other approaches). > > > >> I’m totally fine with that (don’t turn me into a "marketing” guy). It was > >> just a way to refer to the mechanism. I need more feedback about the more > >> fundamental issues to go on. > > > > Naming isn't marketing. It's a real issue: it affects both usability > > and code readability. > > Well, allow me to be on the fence not this one. > > I look for the path of least resistance. I think it would be easiest if I > first manage to make Josh’s static calls to be less intrusive. For that, I > try to add in the GCC plugin an attribute to annotate the function pointers > whose calls should be promoted. However, I don’t manage to get the > declaration from the call instruction's rtx. If anyone has a pointer on how > it can be done, that’s would be very helpful.
Ok. FYI, I'll be posting v3 in the next few days or so.
-- Josh
| |