[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Context switch times
In article <> asked:

| Hm. Perhaps when I did my tests (where I noticed a penalty), we didn't
| have lazy FPU saving. Now we disable the FPU, and restore state when
| we trap, right?
| I do note this comment in arch/i386/kernel/process.c:
| * We fsave/fwait so that an exception goes off at the right time
| * (as a call from the fsave or fwait in effect) rather than to
| * the wrong process. Lazy FP saving no longer makes any sense
| * with modern CPU's, and this simplifies a lot of things (SMP
| * and UP become the same).
| So what exactly is the difference between our "delayed FPU restore
| upon trap" (which I think of as lazy FPU saving), and the "lazy FP"
| saving in the comments?

We always save the FPU, but only restore it when/if it is going to be
used. And obviously we don't want to save it if it hasn't been used,
since it wasn't restored...

bill davidsen <>
"If I were a diplomat, in the best case I'd go hungry. In the worst
case, people would die."
-- Robert Lipe
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: 2005-03-22 13:05    [W:0.112 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site