[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <461D91EE.6020404@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:57:02 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
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
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:23:26 +1000
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
>>>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.
1 extra check versus all that additional argument passing? I don't think it
is conclusive.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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