lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/7]
    Rusty Russell wrote:
    > This patch implements save/restore of %gs in the kernel, so it can be
    > used for per-cpu data. This is not cheap, and we do it for UP as well
    > as SMP, which is stupid. Benchmarks, anyone?
    >
    I measured the cost as adding 9 cycles to a null syscall on my Core Duo
    machine. I have not explicitly measured it on other machines, but I run
    a number of other segment save/load tests on a wide range of machines,
    and didn't find much variability.

    I think saving/restoring %gs will still be necessary. There are a number
    of places in the kernel which expect to find the usermode %gs on the
    kernel stack frame, including context switch, ptrace, vm86, signal
    context, and maybe something else. If you don't save it on the stack,
    then you need to have UP variations of %gs handling in all those other
    places, which is pretty messy. Also, unless you want to have two
    definitions of struct_pt regs (which would add even more mess into
    ptrace), you'd still need to sub/add %esp in entry.S to skip over the
    %gs hole. I don't think this UP microoptimisation would be worth enough
    to justify the mess it would cause elsewhere.

    How does this version of the patch differ from mine? Is it just my
    patch+Ingo's fix, or are there other changes? I couldn't see anything
    from a quick read-over.

    J
    -
    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: 2006-09-23 00:27    [W:4.467 / U:0.264 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site