From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86,64: Simplify save_regs()
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 22:42:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110706204201.GA19985@somewhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E14A781.8090004@zytor.com>
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 11:20:49AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 10:34 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> I really did not think about code duplication, considering
> >> it's better to optimize the irq entry path.
> >>
> >> What do you guys think? We can still revert the whole patchset.
> >
> > FWIW I think it should be a macro, like it was in the original code.
> >
> > Optimizing entry*.S for code size doesn't make a lot of sense.
> >
>
> Code size, no.
>
> *Path* size and cache/prefetch friendliness is another matter.
> The subroutine is bad on that account, too, so yes, this really seems
> like a losing proposition.
>
> I'm not too fond of the gajillion obtuse macros we have, but subroutines
> doesn't make it really any better.
Fine, so I guess we can keep that macro conversion.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-06 20:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-02 16:29 [RFC GIT PULL] x86 entry / perf stacktrace changes Frederic Weisbecker
2011-07-02 16:29 ` [PATCH 1/6] x86: Save stack pointer in perf live regs savings Frederic Weisbecker
2011-07-02 16:29 ` [PATCH 2/6] x86: Fetch stack from regs when possible in dump_trace() Frederic Weisbecker
2011-07-02 16:29 ` [PATCH 3/6] x86,64: Simplify save_regs() Frederic Weisbecker
2011-07-04 7:20 ` Jan Beulich
2011-07-04 12:57 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-07-06 17:34 ` Andi Kleen
2011-07-06 18:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-06 20:42 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2011-07-04 12:59 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-07-02 16:29 ` [PATCH 4/6] x86,64: Separate arg1 from rbp handling in SAVE_REGS_IRQ Frederic Weisbecker
2011-07-04 7:34 ` Jan Beulich
2011-07-02 16:29 ` [PATCH 5/6] x86: Remove useless unwinder backlink from irq regs saving Frederic Weisbecker
2011-07-04 7:29 ` Jan Beulich
2011-07-04 9:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-04 13:10 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-07-04 13:22 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-07-05 22:21 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-07-02 16:29 ` [PATCH 6/6] x86: Don't use frame pointer to save old stack on irq entry Frederic Weisbecker
2011-07-04 9:13 ` [RFC GIT PULL] x86 entry / perf stacktrace changes 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=20110706204201.GA19985@somewhere \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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