[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150225094312.2cfff453@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:43:12 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86: entry.S: tidy up several suboptimal insns
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:20:43 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> But, if we do that, we can do even better, and also do an
> optimization of the 64-bit entry path as well: we could
> simply mask RAX with 0x3ff and not do a compare. Pad the
> syscall table up to 0x400 (1024) entries and fill in the
> table with sys_ni syscall entries.
>
> This is valid on 64-bit and 32-bit kernels as well, and it
> allows the removal of a compare from the syscall entry
> path, at the cost of a couple of kilobytes of unused
> syscall table.
>
> The downside would be that if we ever grow past 1024
> syscall entries we'll be in trouble if new userspace calls
> syscall 513 on an old kernel and gets syscall 1.
What if we test against ~0x3ff and jump to sys_ni if anything is set.
This would still work with new userspace calls on older kernels.
-- 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