Re: [PATCH] [LSM] Rework LSM hooks

[Chris Wright]

* David Mosberger (davidm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> >>>>> 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.

Hmm, the pointers are generally quite static, set once near boot time
typically, and that's it.  Seems like a plausible win.  Do you have an
example of what call_likely() would look like?

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net
-
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/