[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: Intel P6 vs P7 system call performance
Hi Linus, Andrew,

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:07:53 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <> wrote:
> Btw, on another tangent - Andrew Morton reports that APM is unhappy about
> the fact that the fast system call stuff required us to move the segments
> around a bit. That's probably because the APM code has the old APM segment
> numbers hardcoded somewhere, but I don't see where (I certainly knew about
> the segment number issue, and tried to update the cases I saw).

I looked at this yesterday and decided that it was OK as well.

> Debugging help would be appreciated, especially from somebody who knows
> the APM code.

It would help to know what "unhappy" means :-)

Does the following fix it for you? Untested, assumes cache lines are 32

Stephen Rothwell

diff -ruN 2.5.52-200212181207/include/asm-i386/segment.h 2.5.52-200212181207-apm/include/asm-i386/segment.h
--- 2.5.52-200212181207/include/asm-i386/segment.h 2002-12-18 15:25:48.000000000 +1100
+++ 2.5.52-200212181207-apm/include/asm-i386/segment.h 2002-12-18 15:38:34.000000000 +1100
@@ -65,9 +65,9 @@

- * The GDT has 23 entries but we pad it to cacheline boundary:
+ * The GDT has 25 entries but we pad it to cacheline boundary:
-#define GDT_ENTRIES 24
+#define GDT_ENTRIES 28

#define GDT_SIZE (GDT_ENTRIES * 8)

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 13:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean