[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/4] powerpc 2.6.16-rt17: to build on powerpc w/ RT

    > Hey Ben,
    > I appreciate your looking over my patch. You are correct, the
    > conversion is a bit rough and I've not yet been able to work on the
    > powerpc vDSO, although I'd like to get it working so any help or
    > suggestions would be appreciated (is there a reason the vDSO is written
    > in ASM?).
    > If you have any other concerns w/ that patch, or the generic timekeeping
    > code, please let me know and I'll do what I can to address them.

    Well, I've been wanting to look at your stuff and possibly do the
    conversion for some time, provided we don't lose performances ... Our
    current implementation is very optimized to avoid even memory barriers
    in most cases and I doubt we'll be able to be as fine tuned using your
    generic code, thus it's a tradeoff decision that we have to do. But
    then, I need to look into the details before doing any final
    statement :)

    As for why the vDSO is in assembly, well... because it's kewl ? :) More
    seriously, because it's much more simpler that way (and it's hand
    optimized in a couple of places, though that would probably benefit
    going through a proper scheduling analysis). The vDSO code has "special"
    calling conventions (like the need to tweak, the non-use of the
    TOC, the lack of procedure descriptors, symbols are offsets to the
    functions, etc...) that makes it awkward to write it in C.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-17 02:29    [W:0.042 / U:5.568 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site