[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808131320000.3462@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Efficient x86 and x86_64 NOP microbenchmarks
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Also I must say the whole ftrace noping exercise is pretty pointless without
> avoiding frame pointers because it does save less than what you lose
> unconditionally from the "select FRAME_POINTER"
Andi, you seem to have missed the whole point. This is a _correctness_
issue as long as the nop is not a single instruction. And the workaround
for that is uglier than just making a single-instruction nop.
So the question now is to find a good nop that _is_ a single atomic
instruction. Your blathering about frame pointers is missing the whole
point!
Linus
--
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