Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:31:43 +1100 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH consolidate sys_ptrace |
| |
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: > > Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote: > > > > The sys_ptrace boilerplate code (everything outside the big switch > > > statement for the arch-specific requests) is shared by most > > > architectures. This patch moves it to kernel/ptrace.c and leaves the > > > arch-specific code as arch_ptrace. > > Looks okay to me. I do have a concern about all the extra indirections we're > acquiring by this mad rush to centralise everything. It's going to slow things > down and consume more stack space. Is there any way we can: > > (1) Make a sys_ptrace() *jump* to arch_ptrace() instead of calling it, thus > obviating the extra return step. > > (2) Drop the use of lock_kernel().
If we can remove the lock_kernel() and move the final put_task_struct() into each arch_ptrace() then we can end sys_ptrace() with
return arch_ptrace(....);
and with luck, gcc will convert it into a tailcall for us.
It's probably not the first place to start doing such optimisation tho.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |