[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E8E2025.30004@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:39:49 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
Jan Glauber <jang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
peterz@...radead.org, rth@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] jump_label: if a key has already been initialized,
don't nop it out
On 10/06/2011 11:13 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 11:10 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
>> It would be cool if we could make the total width 2-bytes, when
>> possible. It might be possible by making the initial 'JUMP_LABEL_INITIAL_NOP'
>> as a 'jmp' to the 'l_yes' label. And then patching that with a no-op at boot
>> time or link time - letting the compiler pick the width. In that way we could
>> get the optimal width...
>>
> Yes, that would be a win just based on icache footprint alone.
I'm not sure it would be a win, necessarily. My test with back-to-back
jmp2 was definitely slower than with the nop padding it out to 5 bytes;
I suspect that's a result of having too many jmps within one cacheline.
Of course, there's no reason why the CPU would optimise for jumps to
jumps, so perhaps its just hitting a "stupid programmer" path.
J
--
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