From: Zhizhou Zhang <zhizhou.zh@gmail.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
robin.murphy@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: add architecture specified current_pt_regs
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:01:27 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAN1e=SERqTUU_mLwyOQFonz2sVT1xUQAxUs7WOqCNWe_GxCj4w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160219103205.GD27062@arm.com>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:30:09AM +0800, Zhi-zhou wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Catalin Marinas
>> <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:48:35PM +0800, Zhi-zhou Zhang wrote:
>> > > From: zhizhou <zhizhou.zh@gmail.com>
>> > >
>> > > This patch is based on the implementation of arm. The generic
>> > > current_pt_regs is implemented with current->stack. It need to access
>> > > memory that would be too expensive.
>> >
>> > Do you have any performance numbers?
>>
>> I'm using QEMU, so no. Actually this macro isn't heavily used. I just
>> think using the generic
>> implementation is not very nice. It get task_struct from sp_el0, then
>> get stack(which is
>> equal to sp_el0) from task_struct. There are two unnecessary memory accesses.
>
> I'd much rather use the generic implementation unless there's a compelling
> reason not to. "I think it's not very nice" doesn't really cut it for me!
Refer to memory twice may incur cache eviction. I'm really a newbie to
kernel. Anyway, I have a look at kernel and I'm very curious what's
the 'compelling reason' of 16 architectures implement their own
current_pt_regs?
>
> Will
--
Regards,
Zhizhou
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-19 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-18 11:48 [PATCH] arm64: add architecture specified current_pt_regs Zhi-zhou Zhang
2016-02-18 11:58 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-02-19 2:30 ` Zhi-zhou
2016-02-19 10:32 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-19 12:01 ` Zhizhou Zhang [this message]
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='CAN1e=SERqTUU_mLwyOQFonz2sVT1xUQAxUs7WOqCNWe_GxCj4w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=zhizhou.zh@gmail.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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).