Re: [PATCH] x86/signal: Deinline get_sigframe, save 240 bytes

[Davidlohr Bueso]

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/