similar to: [PATCH v3 00/12] x86, kbuild: revert macrofying inline assembly code

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 2018, at 6:50 PM, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote: > > > > Revert the following 9 commits: > > > > [1] 5bdcd510c2ac ("x86/jump-labels: Macrofy inline assembly code to > > work around GCC inlining bugs") > > >

* Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote: > This series reverts the in-kernel workarounds for inlining issues. > > The commit description of 77b0bf55bc67 mentioned > "We also hope that GCC will eventually get fixed,..." > > Now, GCC provides a solution. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html > explains the new

This series reverts the in-kernel workarounds for inlining issues. The commit description of 77b0bf55bc67 mentioned "We also hope that GCC will eventually get fixed,..." Now, GCC provides a solution. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html explains the new "asm inline" syntax. The performance issue will be eventually solved. [About Code cleanups] I know Nadam

This series reverts the in-kernel workarounds for inlining issues. The commit description of 77b0bf55bc67 mentioned "We also hope that GCC will eventually get fixed,..." Now, GCC provides a solution. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html explains the new "asm inline" syntax. The performance issue will be eventually solved. [About Code cleanups] I know Nadam

* Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote: > > I ran some limited number of benchmarks, and in general the performance > > impact is not very notable. You can still see >10 cycles shaved off some > > syscalls that manipulate page-tables (e.g., mprotect()), in which > > paravirt caused many functions not to be inlined. In addition this > > patch-set can

Revert the following 9 commits: [1] 5bdcd510c2ac ("x86/jump-labels: Macrofy inline assembly code to work around GCC inlining bugs") This was partially reverted because it made good cleanups irrespective of the inlining issue; the error message is still unneeded, and the conversion to STATIC_BRANCH_{NOP,JUMP} should be kept. [2] d5a581d84ae6 ("x86/cpufeature:

* Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote: > Ping. Masahiro Yamada noted that some Reviewed-by tags were not added - could you please double check past mails and add them and re-send against the latest kernel? Thanks, Ingo

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote: > This patch-set deals with an interesting yet stupid problem: kernel code > that does not get inlined despite its simplicity. There are several > causes for this behavior: "cold" attribute on __init, different function > optimization levels; conditional constant computations based on >

Revert the following commits: - 5bdcd510c2ac9efaf55c4cbd8d46421d8e2320cd ("x86/jump-labels: Macrofy inline assembly code to work around GCC inlining bugs") - d5a581d84ae6b8a4a740464b80d8d9cf1e7947b2 ("x86/cpufeature: Macrofy inline assembly code to work around GCC inlining bugs") - 0474d5d9d2f7f3b11262f7bf87d0e7314ead9200. ("x86/extable: Macrofy inline assembly

Revert the following commits: - 5bdcd510c2ac9efaf55c4cbd8d46421d8e2320cd ("x86/jump-labels: Macrofy inline assembly code to work around GCC inlining bugs") - d5a581d84ae6b8a4a740464b80d8d9cf1e7947b2 ("x86/cpufeature: Macrofy inline assembly code to work around GCC inlining bugs") - 0474d5d9d2f7f3b11262f7bf87d0e7314ead9200. ("x86/extable: Macrofy inline assembly

Daniel, drm-misc-next-fixes? Dave. On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 12:25, <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Airlie [mailto:airlied at gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 11:19 AM > > To: Yamada, Masahiro/山田 真弘 <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> > > Cc: David Airlie <airlied

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote: > 2017-05-21 2:58 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>: >> After long term efforts of fixing non-common clock implementations, >> clk_disable() is a no-op for a NULL pointer input, and this is now >> tree-wide consistent. >> >> All clock

Hi Dave, > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Airlie [mailto:airlied at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 11:19 AM > To: Yamada, Masahiro/山田 真弘 <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> > Cc: David Airlie <airlied at linux.ie>; Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>; > dri-devel <dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org>; nouveau > <nouveau at

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 11:46, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote: > > Hi. > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:37 PM Masahiro Yamada > <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote: > > > > Currently, the Kbuild core manipulates header search paths in a crazy > > way [1]. > > > > To fix this mess, I want all Makefiles to add

2017-05-21 2:58 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>: > After long term efforts of fixing non-common clock implementations, > clk_disable() is a no-op for a NULL pointer input, and this is now > tree-wide consistent. > > All clock consumers can safely call clk_disable(_unprepare) without > NULL pointer check. > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada

Hi. On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:37 PM Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote: > > Currently, the Kbuild core manipulates header search paths in a crazy > way [1]. > > To fix this mess, I want all Makefiles to add explicit $(srctree)/ to > the search paths in the srctree. Some Makefiles are already written in > that way, but not all. The goal of this

Hi people, this is an attempt to see whether gcc's inline asm heuristic when estimating inline asm statements' cost for better inlining can be improved. AFAIU, the problematic arises when one ends up using a lot of inline asm statements in the kernel but due to the inline asm cost estimation heuristic which counts lines, I think, for example like in this here macro:

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:48:45PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: > Nadav Amit (9): > Makefile: Prepare for using macros for inline asm > x86: objtool: use asm macro for better compiler decisions > x86: refcount: prevent gcc distortions > x86: alternatives: macrofy locks for better inlining > x86: bug: prevent gcc distortions > x86: prevent inline distortion by paravirt

From: Nadav Amit > Sent: 17 May 2018 17:14 > This patch-set deals with an interesting yet stupid problem: kernel code > that does not get inlined despite its simplicity. There are several > causes for this behavior: "cold" attribute on __init, different function > optimization levels; conditional constant computations based on > __builtin_constant_p(); and finally large

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:21:22AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: > This patch-set deals with an interesting yet stupid problem: kernel code > that does not get inlined despite its simplicity. There are several > causes for this behavior: "cold" attribute on __init, different function > optimization levels; conditional constant computations based on > __builtin_constant_p(); and