[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BE11E8A.2090804@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 10:30:18 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@...el.com>,
Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: eliminate TS_XSAVE
On 05/04/2010 09:24 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> I would like to request one change, however. I would like to see the
> alternatives code to be:
>
> movb $0,reg
> movb $1,reg
>
> ... instead of using xor (which has to be padded with NOPs, which is of
> course pointless since the slot is a fixed size.)
Right.
> I would suggest using
> a byte-sized variable instead of a dword-size variable to save a few
> bytes, too.
>
I used a bool, and the code already compiles to a byte mov. Though it
could be argued that a word instruction is better since it avoids a
false dependency, and allows a preceding instruction that modifies %reg
to be executed after the mov instruction.
> Once the jump label framework is integrated and has matured, I think we
> should consider using it to save the mov/test/jump.
>
IIRC that has an implied unlikely() which isn't suitable here?
Perhaps the immediate values patches.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists