[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <520005D8.9080108@akamai.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:06:48 -0400
From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gcc <gcc@....gnu.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
Behan Webster <behanw@...verseincode.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC] gcc feature request: Moving blocks into sections
On 08/05/2013 02:39 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 11:20 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> Of course, it would be good to optimize static_key_false() itself -
>> right now those static key jumps are always five bytes, and while they
>> get nopped out, it would still be nice if there was some way to have
>> just a two-byte nop (turning into a short branch) *if* we can reach
>> another jump that way..For small functions that would be lovely. Oh
>> well.
> I had patches that did exactly this:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/8/461
>
> But it got dropped for some reason. I don't remember why. Maybe because
> of the complexity?
>
> -- Steve
Hi Steve,
I recall testing your patches and the text size increased unexpectedly.
I believe I correctly accounted for changes to the text size *outside*
of branch points. If you do re-visit the series that is one thing I'd
like to double check/understand.
Thanks,
-Jason
--
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