[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B7EC20C.30607@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:53:32 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Add optimized popcnt variants
On 02/19/2010 08:45 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>
>> You're still not inlining these. They should be: there is absolutely no
>> reason for code size to not inline them anymore.
>
> Isn't better to have only those 4 locations for apply_alternatives to
> patch wrt to popcnt instead of sprinkling alternatives sections around
> the kernel in every callsite of hweight and its users? Or is the aim to
> optimize even that "call __arch_hweightXX" away?
>
That's the idea, yes. We use inline alternatives in quite a few other
places.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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