Re: new execve/kernel_thread design

[Al Viro]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 05:16:50PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > Surprisingly enough, ia64 one seems to work on actual hardware; I have sent
> > Tony an incremental patch cleaning copy_thread() up, waiting for results of
> > testing that on SMP box.
> 
> Tiny bit faster than plain 3.7-rc1. lmbench3 reports fork+execve test at between
> 558 to 567 usec with the new code, compared with 562-572 usec with the old.

Are you OK with the state of comments in call_payload() in the current
form of that sucker?  Right now in #arch-ia64 is looks so:
ENTRY(call_payload)
        .prologue ASM_UNW_PRLG_RP|ASM_UNW_PRLG_PFS, ASM_UNW_PRLG_GRSAVE(0)
        /* call the kernel_thread payload; fn is in r4, arg - in r5 */
        alloc loc1=ar.pfs,0,3,1,0
        mov loc0=rp
        mov loc2=gp
        mov out0=r5             // arg
        ld8 r14 = [r4], 8       // fn.address
        ;;
        mov b6 = r14
        ld8 gp = [r4]           // fn.gp
        ;;
        br.call.sptk.many rp=b6 // fn(arg)
.ret12: mov gp=loc2
        mov rp=loc0
        mov ar.pfs=loc1
        /* ... and if it has returned, we are going to userland */
        cmp.ne pKStk,pUStk=r0,r0
        br.ret.sptk.many rp
END(call_payload)

IIRC, the lack of comments on function with unusual calling conventions was
the last remaining issue...
--
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/