Re: [PATCH consolidate sys_ptrace

[Andrew Morton]

David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/