Re: [PATCH] [LSM] Rework LSM hooks

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:31:12 -0400 (EDT), James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> said:

  James> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Chris Wright wrote:
  >> Thanks, James.  Since these are the only concrete numbers and
  >> they are in the noise, I see no compelling reason to change to
  >> unlikely().

  James> There may be some way to make it ia64 specific.  Is it a cpu
  James> issue, or compiler?

I'm pretty sure the "unlikely()" part could be dropped with little/no
downside.  The part that's relatively expensive (10 cycles when
mispredicted) is the indirect call.  GCC doesn't handle this well on
ia64 and as a result, most indirect calls are mispredicted.

An alternative solution might be to have a call_likely() macro, where
you could predict the most likely target of an indirect call.  Perhaps
that could help other platforms as well.

	--david
-
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/