lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [rfc patch] i386: don't save eflags on task switch
Date
On Sunday 05 November 2006 17:12, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> And changing restore-flags to a "conditional branch around sti"

Yes of course.

> is likely
> not much better

We'll see.

It used to be a bad idea because everything was inline, but these
days with out of line code one can be much more flexible.

> - mispredicted branches on a P4 are potentially worse than
> the popf cost.

They are far less than 48 cycles. The P4 is not _that_ bad in this
area.

> Side note: for the netburst microarchitecture - aka P4 - in general,
> something like 48 cycles is a _good_ thing. I measured a internal
> micro-fault for marking a page table entry dirty at over 1500 cycles!
> There's a reason Intel dropped Netburst in favour of Core 2 - which is
> largely just an improved Pentium Pro uarch. Admittedly, the "just" is a
> bit unfair, because there's a _lot_ of improvement, but still..
>
> So you should never actually make any real code design decisions based on
> a P4 result. The P4 is goign away, and it was odd.

There are millions and millions of P4s out there running
Linux and I don't think that will change any time soon (in fact Intel will
be still shipping many new ones for a long time) If there are cheap
valuable optimizations for P4 that don't impact others much I'm all for them.

-Andi
-
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: 2006-11-05 17:59    [W:0.091 / U:0.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site