[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMzpN2hU8pFYqtuDNSW3E-nCnWqNZ_mVMhRN1cpkCWcOfyanLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 07:52:55 -0400
From: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: Rewrite switch_to() code
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Move the low-level context switch code to an out-of-line asm stub instead of
>> > using complex inline asm. This allows constructing a new stack frame for the
>> > child process to make it seamlessly flow to ret_from_fork without an extra
>> > test and branch in __switch_to(). It also improves code generation for
>> > __schedule() by using the C calling convention instead of clobbering all
>> > registers.
>>
>> Just a heads up: I'm writing some code that conflicts with this patch. The
>> conflict will be easy to resolve, and, if this patch beats mine to -tip, I'll
>> rebase.
>
> So I was expecting another iteration of this switch_to() series, but had no
> fundamental objections to the concept.
I'll have it ready soon. I've just been busy with other things lately.
--
Brian Gerst
Powered by blists - more mailing lists