[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXztQ+z+pBDz5Ru6y3e_1uf1xaxkVmOuboDE1uX9vL=hw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 17:01:24 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/17] Pile o' entry stack changes
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> writes:
>>
>> - Lots of people (Linus included) have asked to convert the entry
>> code to pop registers on exit instead of movqing them off the
>> stack. This makes a bunch of progress in that direction.
>
> You should benchmark it on Atoms. Likely it's a regression there
> because they don't have the special PUSH/POP acceleration.
I'm not entirely sure this is a worthwhile reason. Atom will lose a
few cycles due to POP throughput, but there's a lot less decode
bandwidth needed and we save a cache line or two.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists