[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070411113525.baf8deb0.dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:35:25 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>,
"Shai Fultheim (Shai@...lex86.org)" <shai@...lex86.org>,
pravin b shelar <pravin.shelar@...softinc.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, take4] FUTEX : new PRIVATE futexes
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:23:26 +1000
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> But... that isn't there in mainline. Why is it in -mm? At any rate, that makes
> it a no brainer to change.
Seems to be related to lguest. Ask Rusty :)
>
> >
> > As this external thing certainly is not doing the check itself, to be on the safe side we should enforce it in get_futex_key(). I agree with you : If we want to maximize performance, we could say : The check *must* be done by the caller.
>
> Well we _control_ the API, so let's make it as clean and performant as possible
> from the start.
Take a look at do_futex().
Adding checks in callers just increase code size. I tried this got only bad results.
This would speedup only the slow path (ie when some user code want to give us non aligned addrs)
A single factorized check is cleaner and not slower, since we reduce icache pressure.
-
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