Re: [PATCH] softirq_pending()

[David S. Miller]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:48:47 +0200
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:

> x86-64 currently ignores the cpu argument to softirq_pending() and
> always uses smp_processor_id().  And indeed that's the only possible
> argument.  So consolidate the old softirq_pending() and
> local_softirq_pending() into a single one.

The problem is that, on some of the platforms that don't ignore
the argument, the code generation is much better.

GCC doesn't consider smp_processor_id() like some const local
variable, so multiple invocations are assumed to return different
values because in many cases 'current_thread_info()' is obscured.

Your patch is going to make a lot of new code get generated on
x86 for example, so I don't think it should be applied even though
my own platforms are not effected by this issue.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/