From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] speeding up the stat() family of system calls...
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 16:00:25 -0800
Message-ID: <52B8CE99.2050608@zytor.com>
References: <CA+55aFxZ2u+M72u3HSD7TVY2+WRRi27pYC=_4Wawr5y1m8DfnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxZ2u+M72u3HSD7TVY2+WRRi27pYC=_4Wawr5y1m8DfnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On 12/21/2013 12:27 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> HOWEVER. On x86, doing an efficient field-at-a-time copy also requires
> us to use put_user_try() and put_user_catch() in order to not have
> tons of clac/stac instructions for the extended permission testing.
> And the implementation of that was actually fairly non-optimal, so to
> actually get the code I wanted, I had to change how that all worked
> too, using "asm_volatile_goto()".
> 

I guess I'm a bit puzzled... the current code should be just fine if
everything is present, and do we really care about the performance if we
actually have an error condition?

I'm a bit concerned about the put_user_fail: label having uniqueness
problem, which I know some versions of gcc at least get very noisy over.

I like the overall approach, however.

	-hpa