[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <551EDD7E.3050505@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 11:35:42 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
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>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm/entry/64: pack interrupt dispatch table tighter
On 04/03/2015 11:08 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> How about this version?
>> It's still isn't a star of readability,
>> but the structure of the 32-byte code block is more visible now...
>
> Do we really even want to be this clever in the first place?
>
> The thing is, when we take an interrupt:
>
> (a) the L1 I$ is always cold
>
> (b) the instruction decoder has never had time to run ahead
>
> (c) there are usually not that many different interrupts anyway, even
> under load (ie you'd have maybe disk and networking)
>
> (d) we intentionally spread out the different interrupt vector numbers
>
> (e) the 32-byte block thing is questionable, most older
> micro-architectures fetch in 16-byte blocks iirc.
>
For the record, I actually measured the impact of the jump-to-jump when
I wrote it. It has a small, *but measurable*, positive impact.
-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