lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 6/7] arm64, jump label: optimize jump label implementation
On 10/17/2013 05:39 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 06:11:45PM +0100, Jiang Liu wrote:
>> On 10/16/2013 07:46 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + insn = aarch64_insn_gen_nop();
>>>
>>> You could make the code more concise by limiting your patching ability to
>>> branch immediates. Then a nop is simply a branch to the next instruction (I
>>> doubt any modern CPUs will choke on this, whereas the architecture requires
>>> a NOP to take time).
>> I guess a NOP should be more effecient than a "B #4" on real CPUs:)
>
> Well, I was actually questioning that. A NOP *has* to take time (the
> architecture prevents implementations from discaring it) whereas a static,
> unconditional branch will likely be discarded early on by CPUs with even
> simple branch prediction logic.
I naively thought "NOP" is cheaper than a "B" :(
Will use a "B #1" to replace "NOP".

Thanks!
Gerry

>
> Will
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-17 17:01    [W:0.078 / U:0.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site