* Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> Any reason why irq state tracking cannot be done in C as well, like the
> > >> rest of the irq state tracking code?
> > >
> > > Never mind, I see you've done exactly that in patch #12.
> >
> > There are still some TRACE_IRQS_ON, LOCKDEP_SYS_EXIT, and such scattered
> > throughout the asm. it's plausible that even more of that could be moved
> > to
> > C.
> >
> > We could also benchmark and find out how bad it would be if we just always
> > filled pt_regs in completely in syscalls. If the performance hit isn't
> > enough
> > to matter, then we could potentially move the entire syscall path except
> > pt_regs setup and sysret/iret into three C functions.
>
> The thing is, I'd not be against simplifying pt_regs handling even if it
> slows
> down things a tiny bit. If anyone wants to reintroduce that complexity we'll
> see
> how it looks like in isolation, done cleanly.
... and I suspect the reduction of entry points will allow the compiler to do a
better job - so some of the overhead might be won back.
So I'd say we try this approach and complicate it back in the future only if
the
numbers warrant it.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
