Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:24:01 -0700 | From | Davidlohr Bueso <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/signal: Deinline get_sigframe, save 240 bytes |
| |
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
| |