Re: [patch 8/9] F00F bug fixup for i386 - use conditional calls

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Andrew Morton (akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 17:07:55 -0400
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > * Andrew Morton (akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> >  
> > > > Use the faster conditional calls for F00F bug handling in do_page_fault.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I guess this means that CONDCALL will be enabled on pretty much all i386,
> > > in which case making the whole feature Kconfigurable is starting to look
> > > marginal.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps a better approach would have to made this change dependent upon
> > > CONDCALL, rather than forcing it on.
> > > 
> > 
> > Do you mean making X86_F00F_BUG depend on COND_CALL instead of selecting
> > it ?
> 
> yup
> 
> > > > +	if (cond_call(fix_f00f, do_f00f_workaround(regs, address)))
> > > > +		return;
> > > 
> > > We do a cond_call() to an inlined function?  That's a bit weird, isn't it?
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, but it works :) I will add this information to the documentation.
> 
> But why does it work?  Did the compiler generate an out-of-line copy
> of the function?  If so, we'll end up with multiple copies of the function if
> there are other callers.  If not, the `inline' was pointless.

Yes, it's doing an out-of-line copy. Just like the compiler would have
done if we place a call to an inline function within a if() { } block.

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
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/