From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/nmi: Optimize the check for being in the repeat_nmi code
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:20:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170310072056.GA3762@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUFE0X89bmsO8-tcOjPgPXTVCM1URUSD+HaEsGesfq6XA@mail.gmail.com>
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> > It had nothing to do with speedup. Linus said that the current code makes the
> > assembly programmer in him die a little. I want to cure that.
>
> One might argue that the world would be a better place if the assembly
> programmer in some people died a little.
Joking aside, I'll bite: while in the kernel we try to avoid ever actually
_writing_ new assembly code, assembly programming is still an invaluable skill,
because it indirectly improves all the other 99% of non-assembly .c code:
- Looking at the C compiler's assembly output tells us how close the code is to
optimal.
- Being able to tell whether our C abstractions are too far removed from how the
compiler will map it to machine instructions is invaluable.
- Being able to shape data structures and code in a machine-friendly way.
Much would be lost if the assembly programmer went extinct and it's no
accident that annotated assembly output is just two <Enter> keys away
after launching 'perf top' or 'perf report'. The more developers know
assembly the better, IMHO.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-10 7:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-09 22:42 [PATCH 0/2] x86/nmi: Optimize address compares with better jump algorithm Steven Rostedt
2017-03-09 22:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86/nmi: Optimize the check for being in the repeat_nmi code Steven Rostedt
2017-03-10 2:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-03-10 3:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-03-10 3:50 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-03-10 7:20 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2017-03-10 19:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-03-10 19:03 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-03-09 22:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86/nmi: Fix and optimize the NMI stack check code Steven Rostedt
2017-03-10 2:43 ` Andy Lutomirski
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=20170310072056.GA3762@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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