[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUFE0X89bmsO8-tcOjPgPXTVCM1URUSD+HaEsGesfq6XA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 19:50:57 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
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 Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
One might argue that the world would be a better place if the assembly
programmer in some people died a little.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists