This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravi

To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: zach@xxxxxxxxxx, jeremy@xxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>, mingo@xxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:27:01 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <m1648xxf93.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20070316.023331.59468179.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <45FB005D.9060809@xxxxxxxx> <1174127638.8897.75.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070318.003309.71088169.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070318120814.GA45869@xxxxxx> <1174272469.11680.23.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <m1648xxf93.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> True.  You can use all of the call clobbered registers.

Quite often, the biggest single win of inlining is not so much the code 
size (although if done right, that will be smaller too), but the fact that 

The lack of register clobbering, and the freedom for the compiler to 
choose registers around an inlined function is usually the biggest win! If 
you can't do that, then inlining generally doesn't actually even help: a 
call/return to a single instruction isn't all that much slower than just 
doing the "cli" in the first place.

If we end up with a setup where any inlined instruction needs to act as if 
it was a function call (just with the "call" instruction papered over with 
the inlined instruction sequence), then there is no point to this at all. 

In short: people here seem to think that inlining is about avoiding the 
call/ret sequence. Not so. The real advantages of inlining are elsewhere.

So *please* don't believe that you can make it "as cheap" to have some 
automatic fixup of two sequences, one inlined and one as a "call".  It may 
look so when you look at the single instruction generated, but you're 
ignoring all the instructions *around* the site.


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>