[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150610165056.GC29724@treble.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:50:56 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] x86/asm: Compile-time asm code validation
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:31:55AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 05:04:12PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > It's not needed, but it's an optimization to optimize icache usage.
> > It is optional (-freorder-blocks-and-partition)
> >
> > In this case gcc splits the function into two (hot and cold)
> >
> > It's actually a nice optimization and it would be sad from stopping
> > the kernel from using it.
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was trying to ask for examples in kernel asm
> code.
>
> Are you suggesting that we implement this gcc optimization in kernel asm
> code?
If you're wanting something like -freorder-blocks-and-partition for asm
code, maybe we could implement something analagous to the
likely()/unlikely() macros, to allow the hot and cold portions to be
placed into different sections. (I could then teach asmvalidate how to
validate such code.)
Would that be useful?
--
Josh
--
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