mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: <cutaway@bellsouth.net>
To: "Coywolf Qi Hunt" <coywolf@gmail.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] exit_thread() speedups in x86 process.c
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:26:11 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <002401c57099$394f9070$2800000a@pc365dualp2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2cd57c9005061320084de5d80d@mail.gmail.com>

The problem with that approach is GCC would still just relocate the push/pop
block to the bottom of the function.  This means you won't be likely to pick
up anything useful in L1 or L2 as the function exits normally - in fact
you'd typically be guaranteed to be picking up a partial line of gorp that
is completely worthless later on.

This is one of my issues with the notion of unlikely() being smoothed on
everywhere like Bondo<g> - it also makes it "unlikely" that you'll get any
serendipitous L1/L2 advantages that could be had by locating related
functions next to each other.

When you take the unlikely stuff completely out of line in a seperate
functions located elsewhere, the mainline code can make better use of the
caches.  The Intel parts thrive on L1 hits and die if they're not getting
them.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Coywolf Qi Hunt" <coywolf@gmail.com>


I see the effect, But I think it would be better to leave the job to
gcc to generate better code for unlikely, imho.

-- 
Coywolf Qi Hunt
http://ahbl.org/~coywolf/


  reply	other threads:[~2005-06-14  3:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-06-14  1:16 cutaway
2005-06-14  3:08 ` Coywolf Qi Hunt
2005-06-14  4:26   ` cutaway [this message]
2005-06-14  7:43     ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-06-22  5:48 Chuck Ebbert
2005-06-22  8:41 ` cutaway
2005-07-02  2:57 Chuck Ebbert
2005-07-02 11:56 ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-07-03 19:59   ` cutaway
     [not found] <200507012258_MC3-1-A340-3A81@compuserve.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
     [not found] ` <200507021456.40667.vda@ilport.com.ua.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2005-07-03 16:05   ` Andi Kleen
2005-07-05 18:30 William Cohen

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='002401c57099$394f9070$2800000a@pc365dualp2' \
    --to=cutaway@bellsouth.net \
    --cc=coywolf@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®