[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <B0A59A10-BA5C-42AA-A23B-4CF832E6B764@goodmis.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 22:49:49 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/nmi: Optimize the check for being in the repeat_nmi code
On March 9, 2017 9:42:57 PM EST, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>wrote:
>> From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>>
>> Linus mentioned that doing two compares can be replaced by a single
>> compare. That is, instead of:
>>
>> movq $repeat_nmi, %rdx
>> cmpq 8(%rsp), %rdx
>> ja not_in_region
>> movq $end_repeat_nmi, %rdx
>> cmpq 8(%rsp), %rdx
>> ja in_region
>>
>> we can replace that with:
>>
>> movq 8(%rsp), %rdx
>> subq $repeat_nmi, %rdx
>> cmpq $end_repeat_nmi-repeat_nmi, %rdx
>> jb in_region
>
>Seems reasonable to me. Good luck ever noticing the speedup :)
>
It had nothing to do with speedup. Linus said that the current code makes the assembly programmer in him die a little. I want to cure that.
-- Steve
>--Andy
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists