From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D021C433FE for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 18:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Mk0LF5zSdz3dqy for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 05:28:05 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org (client-ip=63.228.1.57; helo=gate.crashing.org; envelope-from=segher@kernel.crashing.org; receiver=) Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Mk0Kg0qWlz3c6r for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 05:27:33 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 296IMuOZ014410; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 13:22:56 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 296IMsob014409; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 13:22:54 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 13:22:54 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] powerpc/64: Add support for out-of-line static calls Message-ID: <20221006182254.GR25951@gate.crashing.org> References: <20221005053234.29312-1-bgray@linux.ibm.com> <20221005053234.29312-6-bgray@linux.ibm.com> <878rltpyy1.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878rltpyy1.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "ajd@linux.ibm.com" , "peterz@infradead.org" , "npiggin@gmail.com" , "rostedt@goodmis.org" , "ardb@kernel.org" , "jbaron@akamai.com" , Benjamin Gray , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "jpoimboe@kernel.org" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 11:39:50AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Christophe Leroy writes: > > However, thinking out loudly, I'm wondering, could we make things any > > simpler when CONFIG_MODULES is not selected, or is that a too much > > corner case on PPC64 ? > > I'd say it's mostly a corner case. > > Obviously no distros ship with modules disabled. > > AFAIK even the stripped down kernels we use in CPU bringup have modules > enabled. > > So I think it's probably not worth worrying about, unless there's an > obvious and fairly simple optimisation. Long ago I built kernels that fit together with the boot firmware and a root fs (busybox+dropbear essentially) in 4MB, but I doubt we can get close to that at all these days :-) What is the overhead if you enable modules but do not use them, these days? Segher