Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Jun 2022 09:06:43 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] Kill the time spent in patch_instruction() | From | Christophe Leroy <> |
| |
Michael ?
Le 31/05/2022 à 08:24, Christophe Leroy a écrit : > > > Le 17/05/2022 à 14:37, Michael Ellerman a écrit : >> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> writes: >>> Le 15/05/2022 à 12:28, Michael Ellerman a écrit : >>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:40:17 +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: >>>>> This series reduces by 70% the time required to activate >>>>> ftrace on an 8xx with CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX. >>>>> >>>>> Measure is performed in function ftrace_replace_code() using mftb() >>>>> around the loop. >>>>> >>>>> With the series, >>>>> - Without CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX, 416000 TB ticks are measured. >>>>> - With CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX, 546000 TB ticks are measured. >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Patches 1, 3 and 4 applied to powerpc/next. >>>> >>>> [1/4] powerpc/code-patching: Don't call is_vmalloc_or_module_addr() >>>> without CONFIG_MODULES >>>> >>>> https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/cb3ac45214c03852430979a43180371a44b74596 >>>> >>>> [3/4] powerpc/code-patching: Use jump_label for testing freed initmem >>>> >>>> https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/b033767848c4115e486b1a51946de3bee2ac0fa6 >>>> >>>> [4/4] powerpc/code-patching: Use jump_label to check if >>>> poking_init() is done >>>> >>>> https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/1751289268ef959db68b0b6f798d904d6403309a >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Patch 2 was the keystone of this series. What happened to it ? >> >> It broke on 64-bit. I think I know why but I haven't had time to test >> it. Will try and get it fixed in the next day or two. >> > > You didn't find any solution at the end, or didn't have time ? > > What was the problem exactly ? I made a quick try on QEMU and it was > working as expected. >
Should I make it a ppc32-only change ?
| |