![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:21:11AM +0100, you [Terje Eggestad] wrote: > > Well, it does make sense if Intel optimized away rdtsc for more commonly > used things, but even that don't seem to be the case. I'm measuring the > overhead of doing a syscall on Linux (int 80) to be ~280 cycles on PIII, > and Athlon, while it's 1600 cycles on P4. Just out of interest, how much would sysenter (or syscall on amd) cost, then? (Supposing it can be feasibly implemented.) I think I heard WinXP (W2k too?) is using sysenter? -- v -- v@iki.fi - 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 12:31 [W:0.166 / U:0.280 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||