[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080416142951.GF24383@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:29:51 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Marker probes in futex.c
* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Not only does the compare and jmp need to be consecutive, but the
> > movb $0x0,%al also does. I *could* try to detect specific code
> > inserted in between, but I really have to make sure I don't get
> > burned by the compiler inserting a jmp there.
>
> I wonder if just sticking in 2 barriers around your code make gcc stop
> moving stuff too much
hm, an extra optimization barrier might have worse effects than even an
extra instruction. I think if the detection and patching can be made
100% safe, we dont care about the remaining 4% of markers that gcc
somehow reorders.
and in parallel gcc folks might want to start helping us achieve
single-instruction branch points? Currently there's no way to get flags
values out of inline assembly, except via a register intermediary which
adds another instruction. For flags that are unaffected by gcc's
input/output constraint generation code it would make sense to allow
them to be exported out of inline assembly.
Ingo
--
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