[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <481241DC.3070601@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:41:00 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, zdenek.kabelac@...il.com,
rjw@...k.pl, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
penberg@...helsinki.fi, clameter@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pageexec@...email.hu,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: fix text_poke
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> +
>> As far as this is concerned, all you accomplish here is that gcc, if it
>> wants to re-use the %al value, will copy it into another register before
>> doing your imv_conv_end().
>>
>
> Exactly, and by doing so, it will have to add instructions (mov, push..)
> in the instruction pattern I am looking for and therefore I will detect
> this and fall back on standard immediate values.
>
So what you're saying is you'll follow all the branches of code until
you detect an immediate value (and eflags) kill.
Yes, that should work. It's still ugly, and I have to say I find the
complexity rather distasteful. I am willing to be convinced it's worth
it, but I would really like to see hard numbers.
Personally, I wouldn't be all that surprised if you lost more in
constraining gcc scheduling than you gain.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists