[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aMftTNkHsbwAFdkt@e129823.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 11:41:16 +0100
From: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, broonie@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org,
oliver.upton@...ux.dev, joey.gouly@....com, james.morse@....com,
ardb@...nel.org, scott@...amperecomputing.com,
suzuki.poulose@....com, yuzenghui@...wei.com, mark.rutland@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 RESEND 5/6] arm64: futex: small optimisation for
__llsc_futex_atomic_set()
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 05:36:20PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 05:19:11PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > > +static __always_inline int
> > > > +__llsc_futex_atomic_set(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval)
> [...]
> > > Hmm, I'm really not sure this is worthwhile. I doubt the "optimisation"
> > > actually does anything and adding a whole new block of asm just for the
> > > SET case isn't much of an improvement on the maintainability side, either.
> >
> > TBH, I had the same question, but I thought this code seems to modify
> > freqenetly, I decide even a small optimisation -- reduce one instruction
> > only.
> >
> > But I don't have strong opinion for this patch.
> > If it's not good for maintainability perspective,
> > This patch can be dropped.
>
> I'd drop it for now unless you can show some performance benefits
> (unlikely).
Yes. not much of improvement. So I'll drop this patch.
Thanks.
--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists