From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
"Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: static_branch/jump_label vs branch merging
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 13:12:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YHA2jPIaj0p23mv8@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXGngxH0VCHyREKeLau=159sRkWYKVZwOV84r6dvCqXcig@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 11:57:22AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 18:53, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > Is there *any* way in which we can have the compiler recognise that the
> > asm_goto only depends on its arguments and have it merge the branches
> > itself?
> >
> > I do realize that asm-goto being volatile this is a fairly huge ask, but
> > I figured I should at least raise the issue, if only to raise awareness.
> >
>
> Wouldn't that require the compiler to interpret the contents of the asm() block?
Yeah, this is more or less asking for ponies :-) One option would be
some annotation that conveys the desired semantics without it having to
untangle the mess in the asm block.
The thing the compiler needs to know is that the branch is constant for
any @key, and hence allow the obvious optimizations. I'm not sure if
this is something compiler folks would be even willing to consider, but
I figured asking never hurts.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-09 11:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-08 16:52 static_branch/jump_label vs branch merging Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-09 9:57 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-04-09 10:55 ` Florian Weimer
2021-04-09 11:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-09 19:33 ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-04-09 20:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-10 17:02 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-09 11:12 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-04-09 11:55 ` David Malcolm
2021-04-09 12:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-09 13:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-09 13:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-09 13:48 ` David Malcolm
2021-04-09 18:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-09 19:21 ` David Malcolm
2021-04-09 20:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-09 21:07 ` David Malcolm
2021-04-09 21:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 11:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 17:08 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-22 17:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-22 18:31 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-04-26 17:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-10 12:44 ` David Laight
2021-04-09 13:03 ` Segher Boessenkool
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YHA2jPIaj0p23mv8@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).