[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1312557254.28695.12.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:14:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFT][patch 17/18] sched: use jump labels to reduce overhead
when bandwidth control is inactive
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 08:11 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/05/2011 01:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > OK, so _WHY_ does that make a difference and will a next version of
> > gnu-binutils not mess that up?
>
> The Why is micro-architectual, and I can't answer that.
>
> But ld will never re-order the files as given on the command-line.
> There are too many functions and tables that are constructed
> piece-wise from input sections; re-ordering them would change
> the semantics of the program.
Right, so I was wondering about things like whole-program-optimization
passes at link time. Since I've no clue why the proposed patch does what
it does, its hard to say what invariant is needed to be kept.
--
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