* Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> >> Any reason why irq state tracking cannot be done in C as well, like the
> >> rest
> >> of the irq state tracking code?
> >
> > Never mind, I see you've done exactly that in patch #12.
>
> There are still some TRACE_IRQS_ON, LOCKDEP_SYS_EXIT, and such scattered
> throughout the asm. it's plausible that even more of that could be moved to
> C.
>
> We could also benchmark and find out how bad it would be if we just always
> filled pt_regs in completely in syscalls. If the performance hit isn't
> enough
> to matter, then we could potentially move the entire syscall path except
> pt_regs
> setup and sysret/iret into three C functions.
The thing is, I'd not be against simplifying pt_regs handling even if it slows
down things a tiny bit. If anyone wants to reintroduce that complexity we'll
see
how it looks like in isolation, done cleanly.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
