[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131017112713.2638910f@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:27:13 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
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 Thu, 17 Oct 2013 22:40:32 +0800
Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com> wrote:
> >>> 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.
> I naively thought "NOP" is cheaper than a "B" :(
> Will use a "B #1" to replace "NOP".
>
Really?? What's the purpose of a NOP then? It seems to me that an
architecture is broken if a NOP is slower than a static branch.
-- Steve
--
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