[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E8CF348.4080405@goop.org>
Date:	Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:16:08 -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
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] jump_label: if a key has already been initialized,
 don't nop it out
On 10/04/2011 09:30 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 07:10 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
>> 1) The jmp +0, is a 'safe' no-op that I know is going to initially
>> boot for all x86. I'm not sure if there is a 5-byte nop that works on
>> all x86 variants - but by using jmp +0, we make it much easier to debug
>> cases where we may be using broken no-ops.
>>
> There are *plenty*.  jmp+0 is about as pessimal as you can get.
As an aside, do you know if a 2-byte unconditional jmp is any more
efficient than 5-byte, aside from just being a smaller instruction and
taking less icache?
    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
 
