[IA64] Reschedule fsys_bubble_down().
Improvements come from eliminating srlz.i, not scheduling AR/CR-reads too early (while there are others still pending), scheduling the backing-store switch as well as possible, splitting the BBB bundle into a MIB/MBB pair. Why is it safe to eliminate the srlz.i? Observe that we used to clear bits ~PSR_PRESERVED_BITS in PSR.L. Since PSR_PRESERVED_BITS==PSR.{UP,MFL,MFH,PK,DT,PP,SP,RT,IC}, we ended up clearing PSR.{BE,AC,I,DFL,DFH,DI,DB,SI,TB}. However, PSR.BE : already is turned off in __kernel_syscall_via_epc() PSR.AC : don't care (kernel normally turns PSR.AC on) PSR.I : already turned off by the time fsys_bubble_down gets invoked PSR.DFL: always 0 (kernel never turns it on) PSR.DFH: don't care --- kernel never touches f32-f127 on its own initiative PSR.DI : always 0 (kernel never turns it on) PSR.SI : always 0 (kernel never turns it on) PSR.DB : don't care --- kernel never enables kernel-level breakpoints PSR.TB : must be 0 already; if it wasn't zero on entry to __kernel_syscall_via_epc, the branch to fsys_bubble_down will trigger a taken branch; the taken-trap-handler then converts the syscall into a break-based system-call. In other words: all the bits we're clearying are either 0 already or are don't cares! Thus, we don't have to write PSR.L at all and we don't have to do a srlz.i either. Good for another ~20 cycle improvement for EPC-based heavy-weight syscalls. Signed-off-by: NDavid Mosberger-Tang <davidm@hpl.hp.com> Signed-off-by: NTony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Showing
想要评论请 注册 或 登录