[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110329061546.GA27398@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:15:46 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@....EDU>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86-64: Don't generate cmov in vread_tsc
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@....EDU> wrote:
> - /* This doesn't multiply 'zero' by anything, which *should*
> - * generate nicer code, except that gcc cleverly embeds the
> - * dereference into the cmp and the cmovae. Oh, well.
> + /* This doesn't multiply 'zero' by anything, which generates
> + * very slightly nicer code than multiplying it by 8.
> */
> last = *( (cycle_t *)
> ((char *)&__vsyscall_gtod_data.clock.cycle_last + zero) );
>
> - return ret >= last ? ret : last;
> + if (likely(ret >= last))
> + return ret;
> +
> + /* GCC likes to generate cmov here, but this branch is extremely
> + predictable (it's just a funciton of time and the likely is
> + very likely) and there's a data dependence, so force GCC
> + to generate a branch instead. */
> + asm volatile ("");
barrier() would do the same, right?
Also, a nit, please use the customary (multi-line) comment style:
/*
* Comment .....
* ...... goes here.
*/
specified in Documentation/CodingStyle.
Thanks,
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