[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811131803300.3468@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:07:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] x86: optimise page fault path a little
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> True, but is it any better to jam them all into a 300 line function
> with gotos?
That wasn't what I was saying.
Theere are two "good" cases:
- don't mess with things.
This is good. Stability is good.
- Clearly improve things.
This is great.
And I'll happily do either of the above.
Your patch had some improvement, but it had some clear not-so-improved
parts. That makes it INFERIOR to just leaving things well alone.
The thing is, I'm not very much interested in just a micro-optimization
that seems to be all about just gcc code generation. Long-term, that's
just bad.
But if it's a clear and undeniable _cleanup_, then long-term, it's
actually a win. If it also happens to fix some gcc stack allocation issues
etc, then that is just gravy.
See my point? Cleanup is good. But it had better _be_ a cleanup. Random
micro-optimization is not so good, especially not if it them makes the
code do things that good code simply shouldn't be doing.
As it is, I don't think your patch is appropriate to be merged.
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