Muli Ben-Yehuda's journal

January 12, 2006

2.6.16-rc1, the kernel of doom!

Filed under: Uncategorized — Muli Ben-Yehuda @ 10:21 AM

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it ๐Ÿ™‚

Date: 		 Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:08:15 -0800
From: Linux Kernel Mailing List [linux-kernel(at)vger.kernel.org]
To: git-commits-head(at)vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] x86_64: Use function pointers to call DMA mapping functions

tree b6b3b55318336adf769bf57141a01a9defbbb202
parent 8a6fdd3e912e0ce6f723431d66baf704bf8a1d26
author Muli Ben-Yehuda [mulix(at)mulix.org] Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:44:42 +0100
committer Linus Torvalds [torvalds(at)g5.osdl.org] Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:04:55 -0800

[PATCH] x86_64: Use function pointers to call DMA mapping functions

10 Comments »

  1. Why is it the kernel of doom?

    Comment by yrk — January 12, 2006 @ 11:13 AM | Reply

    • my patch has been included ๐Ÿ™‚

      Comment by mulix — January 12, 2006 @ 3:54 PM | Reply

  2. kernel of doom
    Dum Dum Dummmmmmmm!
    I was actually going to switch to FreeBSD anyway… ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Comment by xavishayx — January 12, 2006 @ 11:35 PM | Reply

    • Re: kernel of doom
      Some of my best friends are FreeBSD developers. NetBSD, on the other hand – the one NetBSD developer I have the misfortune of being acquainted with is a complete and utter ass.
      You know you’ve been doing this open source thing for a loong time when you pick the programs you use based on who developed them.

      Comment by mulix — January 13, 2006 @ 11:25 AM | Reply

  3. But function pointers are *bad*!

    Comment by taral — January 13, 2006 @ 7:14 AM | Reply

    • err… why?

      Comment by mulix — January 13, 2006 @ 11:25 AM | Reply

      • I was making fun of some people, but I don’t blame you for not recognizing it. Function pointers are bad in that they block speculation, requiring an effective pipeline flush. Almost certainly not an issue for you, and, in my opinion, pretty much not an issue ever, but some people claim it is and seem to do a lot of convoluted work to avoid them.

        Comment by taral — January 13, 2006 @ 3:17 PM

      • Definitely not an issue for this patch – I went through a bit of trouble at first to keep the “default” path through the DMA ops function pointer free (i.e., added an
        if (unlikely(ops->func)
        ops->func(…)
        else
        default_func()
        ). gcc knows which path is going to be taken (via unlikely) and the CPU should be smart enough to speculate correctly. Then Andi Kleen made everything go through the ops function pointers. If he thinks it’s acceptable, I’m certainly happy.

        Comment by mulix — January 13, 2006 @ 3:29 PM

  4. w00t w00t!!!

    Comment by omerm — January 13, 2006 @ 2:41 PM | Reply

  5. Muli, x86_64 needs to be stable
    We plan to use it here at work for our product, so please..
    Just kidding. Keep up the good work ๐Ÿ™‚

    Comment by da_x — January 24, 2006 @ 9:29 PM | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: