[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150928202401.GB4035@linux-uzut.site>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:24:01 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/signal: Deinline get_sigframe, save 240 bytes
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>On 09/28/2015 02:33 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> This one makes me slightly nervous, because it isn't clear
>> that these aren't potentially performance sensitive.
>
>CALL instruction is not a crime :)
>It costs about the same as one read-modify-write
>operation on a memory operand.
>
>This function is used in signal delivery code.
>If performance critical code uses massive numbers
>of signals, it already has a problem, Unix signals
>are too inefficient. That's why we have futexes etc...
True, but in general I don't think that justifies anything -- and not only
referring to this particular signal patch.
Nothing really against or in favor of these patches, but I don't think that
saving 240 bytes (or whatever) is worth such changes, in fact we have Josh's
tinyfication project for those systems that do in fact care.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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