[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131017093944.GB18765@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:39:44 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.prabhu@...aro.org>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] arm64, jump label: optimize jump label
implementation
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 06:11:45PM +0100, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 10/16/2013 07:46 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> >> + } else {
> >> + insn = aarch64_insn_gen_nop();
> >
> > You could make the code more concise by limiting your patching ability to
> > branch immediates. Then a nop is simply a branch to the next instruction (I
> > doubt any modern CPUs will choke on this, whereas the architecture requires
> > a NOP to take time).
> I guess a NOP should be more effecient than a "B #4" on real CPUs:)
Well, I was actually questioning that. A NOP *has* to take time (the
architecture prevents implementations from discaring it) whereas a static,
unconditional branch will likely be discarded early on by CPUs with even
simple branch prediction logic.
Will
--
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