[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E8CF385.2080804@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:17:09 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
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 10/05/2011 05:16 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 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?
>
I don't know for sure, no. I probably depends on the CPU.
-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