[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120801205306.GB20714@lizard>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:53:06 -0700
From: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com, kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] ARM: Get rid of .LCcralign local label usage in
alignment_trap macro
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 03:15:44PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:58:20AM -0700, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > This makes the code more izolated.
> >
> > The downside of this is that we now have an additional branch and the
> > code itself is 8 bytes longer. But on the bright side, this new layout
> > can be more cache friendly since cr_alignment address might be already
> > in the cache line (not that I measured anything, it's just fun to think
> > about it).
>
> The caches are harvard, so mixing data and code together does not increase
> performance. Having data which is used by the same code in the same cache
> line results in better performance.
>
> The additional branch will also cause a pipeline stall on older CPUs.
>
> So no, I don't see any way that this is a performance improvement. Please
> leave this as is.
Sure, will drop it.
Thanks!
--
Anton Vorontsov
Email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
--
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