On May 20 2007 18:12, Folkert van Heusden wrote:
quoted text
>> >  
>> > +	if (unlikely(sig == SIGQUIT || sig == SIGILL  || sig == SIGTRAP ||
>> > +	    sig == SIGABRT || sig == SIGBUS  || sig == SIGFPE  ||
>> > +	    sig == SIGSEGV || sig == SIGXCPU || sig == SIGXFSZ ||
>> > +	    sig == SIGSYS  || sig == SIGSTKFLT))
>> > +	{
>> > +		printk(KERN_WARNING "Sig %d send to %d owned by %d.%d (%s)\n",
>> > +			sig, t->pid, t->uid, t->gid, t->comm);
>> > +	}
>> > +
>> >  	/*
>> >  	 * fast-pathed signals for kernel-internal things like SIGSTOP
>> >  	 * or SIGKILL.
>> 
>> Would turning that into a switch() generate better code.

Yes, this time.

quoted text
>Doubt it: in the worst case you still nee to check for each possibility.
>Furthermore a.f.a.i.k. with switch you cannot do 'unlinkely()'.

With if(), it generates a ton of "CMP, JE" instructions.
With switch(), I would assume gcc transforms it into using
a jump table (aka "JMP [table+sig]")

I tried it: with switch(), gcc transforms this into a
bitmap comparison ("MOV eax, 1; SHL eax, sig; TEST eax, 0x830109f8"),
which seems even cheaper than a jump table.


	Jan
-- 
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/