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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8F2C4332B for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 17:06:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F0C64F45 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 17:06:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231301AbhCIRFf (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2021 12:05:35 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:53858 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230504AbhCIRFW (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2021 12:05:22 -0500 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6FCC064FB8; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 17:05:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 12:05:19 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: The killing of ideal_nops[] Message-ID: <20210309120519.7c6bbb97@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 17:58:17 +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hi, > > AFAICT everything made in the past 10 years ends up using p6_nops. Is it > time to kill off ideal_nops[] and simplify life? > Well, the one bug that was reported recently was due to a box that uses a different "ideal_nops" than p6_nops. Perhaps we should ask him if there's any noticeable difference between using p6_nops for every function than the ideal_nops that as found for that box. -- Steve