From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/6] x86: dynamic indirect branch promotion
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 12:10:57 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190103181057.lflra4lkoaeg2btv@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A7D88101-837A-4FD2-B397-019D1845A418@vmware.com>
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.
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-03 18:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-31 7:21 [RFC v2 0/6] x86: dynamic indirect branch promotion Nadav Amit
2018-12-31 7:21 ` [RFC v2 1/6] x86: introduce kernel restartable sequence Nadav Amit
2018-12-31 20:08 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-31 21:12 ` Nadav Amit
2019-01-03 22:21 ` Andi Kleen
2019-01-03 22:29 ` Nadav Amit
2019-01-03 22:48 ` Andi Kleen
2019-01-03 22:52 ` Nadav Amit
2019-01-03 23:40 ` Andi Kleen
2019-01-03 23:56 ` Nadav Amit
2019-01-04 0:34 ` hpa
2018-12-31 7:21 ` [RFC v2 2/6] objtool: ignore instructions Nadav Amit
2018-12-31 7:21 ` [RFC v2 3/6] x86: patch indirect branch promotion Nadav Amit
2018-12-31 7:21 ` [RFC v2 4/6] x86: interface for accessing indirect branch locations Nadav Amit
2018-12-31 7:21 ` [RFC v2 5/6] x86: learning and patching indirect branch targets Nadav Amit
2018-12-31 20:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-31 21:07 ` Nadav Amit
2018-12-31 7:21 ` [RFC v2 6/6] x86: outline optpoline Nadav Amit
2018-12-31 19:51 ` [RFC v2 0/6] x86: dynamic indirect branch promotion Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-31 19:53 ` Nadav Amit
2019-01-03 18:10 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2019-01-03 18:30 ` Nadav Amit
2019-01-03 20:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-01-03 22:18 ` Andi Kleen
2019-01-07 16:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-08 7:47 ` Adrian Hunter
2019-01-08 9:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-08 10:01 ` Adrian Hunter
2019-01-08 10:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-08 17:27 ` Andi Kleen
2019-01-08 18:28 ` Nadav Amit
2019-01-08 19:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-08 20:47 ` Nadav Amit
2019-01-08 20:53 ` Andi Kleen
2019-01-09 10:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-29 8:23 ` Tracing text poke / kernel self-modifying code (Was: Re: [RFC v2 0/6] x86: dynamic indirect branch promotion) Adrian Hunter
2019-08-29 8:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-29 9:40 ` Adrian Hunter
2019-08-29 11:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-12 7:00 ` Adrian Hunter
2019-09-12 12:17 ` hpa
2019-01-08 18:57 ` [RFC v2 0/6] x86: dynamic indirect branch promotion Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190103181057.lflra4lkoaeg2btv@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dwmw@amazon.co.uk \
--cc=ecree@solarflare.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).