[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150611060807.GA30720@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:08:07 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] x86: Compile-time asm code validation
* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> I should also mention that my proposed ia32_ptregs_common patch, which
> duplicated the needed code, was more optimized for performance than code size.
>
> But if you're more worried about code size, we could turn ia32_ptregs_common
> into a proper callable function, and then replace
>
> jmp ia32_ptregs_common
>
> with:
>
> call ia32_ptregs_common
> ret
>
> So it becomes a regular call instead of a tail call. It only adds a few
> instructions and the function is self-contained. Would that be good enough?
No, debug info should not slow down the kernel, especially not code we write in
assembly partly for performance.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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