On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On 09/28/2015 02:33 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
This one makes me slightly nervous, because it isn't clear
that these aren't potentially performance sensitive.
CALL instruction is not a crime :)
It costs about the same as one read-modify-write
operation on a memory operand.
This function is used in signal delivery code.
If performance critical code uses massive numbers
of signals, it already has a problem, Unix signals
are too inefficient. That's why we have futexes etc...
True, but in general I don't think that justifies anything -- and not only
referring to this particular signal patch.
Nothing really against or in favor of these patches, but I don't think that
saving 240 bytes (or whatever) is worth such changes, in fact we have Josh's
tinyfication project for those systems that do in fact care.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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/
