Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:15:31 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] x86-64: Emulate legacy vsyscalls |
| |
* pageexec@freemail.hu <pageexec@freemail.hu> wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2011 at 8:48, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > you seemed to have made a distinction, you tell me ;), [...] > > > > I have not made any distinction at all, *you* wrote: > > i asked you that question because for all this time you seemed to > have been very worked up by the fact that i called the page fault > path as not 'fast'. i thought maybe what caused your nervous > reaction and desperate attempts at trying to justify it was due to > some misunderstanding in wording, but i now see that we probably > talked about the same thing. with the exception that you *still* > have not provided any evidence for your claim. why is that Ingo? do > you have nothing to prove your single cycle 'improvemnt'? (sorry, > had a chuckle again ;).
You are again trying to shift the topic. Your original claim, which you snipped from your reply:
> a page fault is never a fast path
is simply ridiculous on its face and crazy talk, and no amount of insults you hurl at me will change that fact - you ignored the various pieces of evidence that i cited that the page fault code is very much a fastpath: past commits, cycles estimations, a list of various (obvious) types of impact, the statements of several prominent kernel developers (including Linus) that establish that the page fault path is very much treated as a fastpath by everyone who develops it and you also ignored the fact that there's a working alternative that has none of those disadvantages.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |