[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx=zLkZx4h4rcWv79OKQSGJAwC3eS8=zSDgKjyrsbLrNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 18:58:56 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/asm changes for v4.18
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:21 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> - __clear_user() micro-optimization (Alexey Dobriyan)
Was this actually tested?
I think one reason people avoided the constant was that on some
microarchitecture it ended up being a separate uop just for the
constant generation, because it wouldn't fit in a single uop.
I'm pretty sure that used to be the case for P4, for example.
Afaik there have also been issues with decoding instructions that have
both an immediate and a memory offset.
I suspect none of this is an issue on modern cores, but there really
at least historically were cases where
mov %reg,mem
was better than
mov $imm,mem
if %reg already had the right value, so it's not at all 100% obvious
that the micro-optimization really _optimizes_ anything.
Any time people do this, they should add numbers.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists