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 Thu, 17 Oct 2013 22:40:32 +0800
Jiang Liu <liuj97@gmail.com> wrote:


> >>> 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".
>

Really?? What's the purpose of a NOP then? It seems to me that an
architecture is broken if a NOP is slower than a static branch.

-- Steve


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-17 17:41    [W:0.097 / U:1.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site