lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-08 11:19    [W:0.376 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site