* Steven Rostedt (rost...@goodmis.org) wrote: > On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 10:48 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > So I wonder if this is a "ok, let's not bother, it's not worth the > > pain" issue. 128 bytes of offset is very small, so there probably > > aren't all that many cases that would use it. > > OK, I'll forward port the original patches for the hell of it anyway, > and post it as an RFC. Let people play with it if they want, and if it > seems like it would benefit the kernel perhaps we can reconsider. > > It shouldn't be too hard to do the forward port, and if we don't ever > take it, it would be a fun exercise regardless ;-) > > Actually, the first three patches should be added as they are clean ups > and safety checks. Nothing to do with the actual 2-5 byte jumps. They > were lost due to their association with the complex patches. :-/
Steve, perhaps you could add a mode to your binary rewriting program that counts the number of 2-byte vs 5-byte jumps found, and if possible get a breakdown of those per subsystem ? It might help us getting a clearer picture of how many important sites, insn cache-wise, are being shrinked by this approach. Thanks, Mathieu > > -- Steve > > -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com