Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86: entry.S: tidy up several suboptimal insns

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:20:43 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> But, if we do that, we can do even better, and also do an
>> optimization of the 64-bit entry path as well: we could
>> simply mask RAX with 0x3ff and not do a compare. Pad the
>> syscall table up to 0x400 (1024) entries and fill in the
>> table with sys_ni syscall entries.
>>
>> This is valid on 64-bit and 32-bit kernels as well, and it
>> allows the removal of a compare from the syscall entry
>> path, at the cost of a couple of kilobytes of unused
>> syscall table.
>>
>> The downside would be that if we ever grow past 1024
>> syscall entries we'll be in trouble if new userspace calls
>> syscall 513 on an old kernel and gets syscall 1.
>
> What if we test against ~0x3ff and jump to sys_ni if anything is set.
> This would still work with new userspace calls on older kernels.

That would require a branch insn. The whole idea of masking
was merely to avoid that branch. If you need a branch,
then you can as well just retain current code.
--
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/