> On Jun 13, 2019, at 6:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I still have these patches sitting in my queue and figured I'd repost them. > > Last time Linus proposed a "+m" alternative approach, but that generates far > far worse code (I've lost the patch and not re-ran those numbers, but I > suppose > I can redo if found important).
I remember I tried it as well and got the same results. > These patches have been through 0day for a while. Finally, I would not need to cache smp_processor_id() on the stack when it is used multiple times…
