From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754199Ab3GTOsD (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:48:03 -0400 Received: from science.horizon.com ([71.41.210.146]:15849 "HELO science.horizon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754139Ab3GTOsB (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:48:01 -0400 Date: 20 Jul 2013 10:47:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20130720144758.13924.qmail@science.horizon.com> From: "George Spelvin" To: bp@alien8.de, linux@horizon.com Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86 fixes for 3.11-rc2 Cc: hpa@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20130720132548.GA13759@pd.tnic> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Borislav Petkov wrote: > I don't think that matters because this is called only once on suspend. > Unless the cleaner assembly translates into a palpable speedup, which I > doubt. I was thinking about code *size*, actually; I agree that speed is too small to measure. Clean code (21 bytes): 4e: b9 80 00 00 c0 mov $0xc0000080,%ecx 53: 0f 32 rdmsr 55: 0f 30 wrmsr 57: 31 f6 xor %esi,%esi 59: 85 f6 test %esi,%esi 5b: 89 43 14 mov %eax,0x14(%ebx) 5e: 89 53 18 mov %edx,0x18(%ebx) 61: 75 04 jne 67 Ugly code (50 bytes): 51: b9 80 00 00 c0 mov $0xc0000080,%ecx 56: 0f 32 rdmsr 58: 31 c9 xor %ecx,%ecx 5a: 89 c6 mov %eax,%esi 5c: 85 c9 test %ecx,%ecx 5e: 89 45 ec mov %eax,-0x14(%ebp) 61: 89 55 f0 mov %edx,-0x10(%ebp) 64: 89 73 14 mov %esi,0x14(%ebx) 67: 89 53 18 mov %edx,0x18(%ebx) 6a: 75 1b jne 87 6c: 8b 75 ec mov -0x14(%ebp),%esi 6f: b9 80 00 00 c0 mov $0xc0000080,%ecx 74: 8b 7d f0 mov -0x10(%ebp),%edi 77: 89 f0 mov %esi,%eax 79: 89 fa mov %edi,%edx 7b: 0f 30 wrmsr 7d: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax 7f: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax 81: 75 04 jne 87