From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] speeding up the stat() family of system calls...
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 16:00:25 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52B8CE99.2050608@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxZ2u+M72u3HSD7TVY2+WRRi27pYC=_4Wawr5y1m8DfnQ@mail.gmail.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-24 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-21 20:27 [RFC] speeding up the stat() family of system calls Linus Torvalds
2013-12-21 22:54 ` John Stoffel
2013-12-22 0:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-12-24 0:00 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2013-12-24 0:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-12-24 6:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-12-24 20:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-26 19:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-12-27 0:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-12-27 3:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-12-27 6:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-12-27 23:30 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-01-12 17:46 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52B8CE99.2050608@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).