| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1217261852.3503.89.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:17:32 -0500 From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: unify pmd_free() implementation On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 08:53 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > But this is horrible, because it forces a totally unnecessary function > call for that empty function. > > Yeah, the function will be cheap, but the call itself will not be (it's a > C language barrier and basically disables optimizations around it, causing > thigns like register spill/reload for no good reason). Are you sure about this (the barrier)? We've been struggling to find a paradigm for our trace points but the consensus seemed to be that compiler barriers were pretty tiny perturbations in the optimiser stream (they affect calculation ordering, but not usually enough to be noticed). The register spills to get known locations for the tracepoint variables seemed to be the much more expensive thing. If this basic assumption is wrong, we need to know now ... James -- 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