[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN6PR1101MB216120D24ECD8A5C7DB9C64BA8279@BN6PR1101MB2161.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2022 00:13:47 +0000
From: "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
CC: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"brgerst@...il.com" <brgerst@...il.com>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/6] x86/gsseg: make asm_load_gs_index() take an u16
> >
> > From: "H. Peter Anvin (Intel)" <hpa@...or.com>
> >
> > Let gcc know that only the low 16 bits of load_gs_index() argument
> > actually matter. It might allow it to create slightly better code.
> > However, do not propagate this into the prototypes of functions that
> > end up being paravirtualized, to avoid unnecessary changes.
>
> Using u16 will almost always make the code worse.
> At some point the value has to be masked and/or extended to ensure an out of
> range value doesn't appear in a register.
Any potential issue with this patch set?
>
> David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1
> 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists