On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 01:34:21PM -0400, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Per subject of the patch, 14 is also an optimization that while not a > strict requirement, is somewhat related to the monolithic conversion > because in fact it may naturally disappear if I rename the vmx/svm > functions directly. > > 15 16 17 don't have the monolithic tag in the subject of the patch and > they're obviously unrelated to the monolithic conversion, but when I > did the first research on this idea of dropping kvm.ko a couple of > months ago, things didn't really work well until I got rid of those > few last retpolines too. If felt as if the large retpoline regression > wasn't linear with the number of retpolines executed for each vmexit, > and that it was more linear with the percentage of vmexits that hit on > any number of retpolines. So while they're not part of the monolithic > conversion I assumed they're required to run any meaningful benchmark. > > I can drop 15 16 17 from further submits of course, after clarifying > benchmark should be only run on the v1 full set I posted earlier, or > they wouldn't be meaningful. I like the patches, I'd just prefer that they be sent in a separate series so they can churn independently.
