From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>,
Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386 do_machine_check() is redundant.
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:23:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030929192307.GA24740@gtf.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309291142430.3626-100000@home.osdl.org>
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:46:12AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Has anybody checked out whether the kernel works with -mregparm=3? I
> forget who did a lot of the work on it originally, and it certainly _used_
> to work fine. The improvements to both code size and performance were, if
> I remember correctly, measurable but not huge.
That jibes with what I would expect (I missed the older threads, but
was nonetheless toying with this idea myself)...
Function arguments on the stack are likely to be in L1 cache anyway,
so accessing arguments is already pretty cheap. And storing the
parameters in registers might increase the number of spills slightly,
for cases, where an argument isn't used much, or at all.
Ideally unit-at-a-time could figure out the optimal -mregparm value :)
> One worry (apart from just broken compilers and missing "asmlinkage"
> annotations) is that having compiler-version-dependent calling conventions
> makes for another variable to take into account when chasing down bugs and
> worrying about things like the Nvidia module etc. So it's probably not
> worth doing unless the advantages are clear.
Well... even with completely open source, you're never gonna have a
working system with modules built using compiler versions and options
that differ from the main kernel image. In the past, changing compiler
versions would definitely affect the module interfaces adversely.
So while I agree with your overall conservatism, worrying about
supporting miscompiled modules is the road to Hades...
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-29 19:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-28 16:29 [PATCH] i386 do_machine_check() is redundant Brian Gerst
2003-09-28 18:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-09-28 18:30 ` Brian Gerst
2003-09-28 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-09-28 18:44 ` Brian Gerst
2003-09-28 19:04 ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-09-29 18:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-09-29 19:23 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2003-09-29 19:54 ` -mregparm=3 (was " Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-09-30 8:28 ` Helge Hafting
2003-09-30 15:29 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-09-30 15:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-09-29 20:20 ` Mikulas Patocka
2003-09-29 20:26 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-29 21:36 ` Mikulas Patocka
2003-09-29 21:40 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-29 21:43 ` Mikulas Patocka
2003-09-29 21:48 ` Jakub Jelinek
2003-09-30 0:24 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-09-30 4:49 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-09-30 4:55 ` Robert Love
2003-09-30 14:37 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-09-30 15:48 ` Robert Love
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=20030929192307.GA24740@gtf.org \
--to=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=arjanv@redhat.com \
--cc=bgerst@didntduck.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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