[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: disabling group leader perf_event
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
>>> The actual language doesn't really matter.
>> There are 3 basic categories:
>>  1- Most (least abstract) specific code: a block of bytecode in the form
>>    of a simplified, executable, kernel-checked x86 machine code block -
>>    this is also the fastest form. [yes, this is actually possible.]
>>  2- Least specific (most abstract) code: A subset/sideset of C - as it's
>>    the most kernel-developer-trustable/debuggable form.
>>  3- Everything else little more than a dot on the spectrum between the
>>    first two points.
>> I lean towards #2 - but #1 looks interesting too. #3 is distinctly
>> uninteresting as it cannot be as fast as #1 and cannot be as convenient
>> as #2.

2010/9/6 Pekka Enberg <>:
> It's a question where you want to push the complexity of parsing the
> language and verifying the executed code. I'd image it's easier to
> evolve an ABI if we use an intermediate form ("bytecode") on the
> kernel side. Supporting multiple versions of a C-like language is
> probably going to be painful. You also probably don't want to put
> heavy-weight compiler optimization passes in the kernel so with an
> intermediate form, you can do much of that in user-space.
> I'm guessing this thing is expected to work on all architectures? If
> that's true, I'd forget about JIT'ing for the time being and write an
> interpreter first because it's much easier to port. There are
> techniques in making an interpreter pretty fast too. Google for
> "inlining interpreter" if you're interested.
> As for the intermediate form, you might want to take a look at Dalvik:
> and probably ParrotVM bytecode too. The thing to avoid is stack-based
> instructions like in Java bytecode because although it's easy to write
> interpreters for them, it makes JIT'ing harder (which needs to convert
> stack-based representation to register-based) and probably doesn't
> lend itself well to stack-constrained kernel code.

Btw, the alternative route is to imitate how compilers like tcc and
lcc (and IIRC go and one of the plan9 languages) go about compiling C
language code into native code directly. They are pretty light-weight,
fast, and generate decent code. The down-side is that verification is
going to be more tricky and ABI issues might turn out to be nasty.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-06 22:39    [W:0.173 / U:155.640 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site