lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Intel P6 vs P7 system call performance
Terje Eggestad wrote:
> It get even worse with Hammer. When you run hammer in compatibility mode
> (32 bit app on a 64 bit OS) the sysenter is an illegal instruction.
>
> Since Intel don't implement syscall, there is no portable sys*
> instruction for 32 bit apps. You could argue that libc hides it for you
> and you just need libc to test the host at startup (do I get a sigill if
> I try to do getpid() with sysenter? syscall? if so we uses int80 for
> syscalls). But not all programs are linked dyn.


Linus talked about this once, and it was agreed that the only sane way
to do this properly was via vsyscalls... have a page mapped somewhere in
high (kernel-area) memory, say at 0xfffff000, but readable by normal
processes. A system call can be invoked via call 0xfffff000, and the
*kernel* enters whatever code is appropriate to enter itself.

> Too bad really, I tried the sysenter patch once, and the gain (on PIII
> and athlon) was significant.
>
> Fortunately the 64bit libc for hammer uses syscall.
>

Yes.

>
> PS: rdtsc on P4 is also painfully slow!!!
>

Now that's just braindead...

-hpa


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:0.305 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site