[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <530D5989.5060001@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:03:37 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, behanw@...verseincode.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, ak@...ux.intel.com, oleg@...hat.com
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: LLVMLinux: Reimplement current_stack_pointer without
register usage.
On 02/25/2014 07:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> How much does this actually affect the output? I only see three uses of
>> current_stack_pointer:
>>
>> /* how to get the thread information struct from C */
>> static inline struct thread_info *current_thread_info(void)
>> {
>> return (struct thread_info *)
>> (current_stack_pointer & ~(THREAD_SIZE - 1));
>> }
>>
>> ... here we need the mov anyway, because we have to then AND it with a
>> mask, which we obviously can't do inside the stack pointer.
>
> No clue what code is actually generated, but the new code could generate:
>
> mov $MASK, %rax;
> and %esp, %rax;
>
> Admittedly, I can't see any reason why this would be an improvement.
>
You have to generate one of the code sequences:
mov $MASK, %eax
and %esp, %eax
... or ...
mov %esp, %eax
and $MASK, %eax
No real difference either way.
-hpa
--
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