David Howells <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The sys_ptrace boilerplate code (everything outside the big switch
> > > statement for the arch-specific requests) is shared by most
> > > architectures. This patch moves it to kernel/ptrace.c and leaves the
> > > arch-specific code as arch_ptrace.
>
> Looks okay to me. I do have a concern about all the extra indirections we're
> acquiring by this mad rush to centralise everything. It's going to slow things
> down and consume more stack space. Is there any way we can:
>
> (1) Make a sys_ptrace() *jump* to arch_ptrace() instead of calling it, thus
> obviating the extra return step.
>
> (2) Drop the use of lock_kernel().
If we can remove the lock_kernel() and move the final put_task_struct()
into each arch_ptrace() then we can end sys_ptrace() with
return arch_ptrace(....);
and with luck, gcc will convert it into a tailcall for us.
It's probably not the first place to start doing such optimisation tho.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
