Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:59:32 +0000 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] syscall latency improvement #1 |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: > > NOTE! There are potentially other ways to do all of this, _without_ losing > > atomicity. For example, you can move the "flags" value into the slot saved > > for the CS segment (which, modulo vm86, will always be at a constant > > offset on the stack), and make CS=0 be the work flag. That will cause the > > CPU to trap atomically at the "iret". > > Is the test even needed. Suppose we instead patch the return stack if we > set need_resched/sigpending, and do it on the rare occassion we set the > value.
Yes, that's what you'll find in one of Ingo Molnar's low latency patches.
-- Jamie - 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/
| |