lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: crash in entry.S restore_all, 2.6.12-rc2, x86, PAGEALLOC

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:

> > > pushfl

> After all, I very strongly suspect that we don't actually really
> _care_ if eflags stays the same over a system call, and I could see
> that some dynamic CPU's might prefer not having to push an eflags
> value that just got changed by the "sti", so it _might_ save several
> cycles to avoid that dependency, and also obviously avoid a subtle
> dependency on a sw level that the previous patch clearly introduced.
>
> Anybody willing to time it? ;)

i can tell you without any measurement that pushfl is slower by a couple
of cycles than a simple pushl $0x00010046, on basically all x86 CPUs.
And since we only support SYENTER from 32-bit mode and we dont guarantee
flags to be saved, it isnt all that incorrect to do?

Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-07 16:55    [W:0.068 / U:3.952 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site