Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patch
From: Jamie Lokier (jamie_at_shareable.org)
Date: 01/31/04
- Previous message: Donald H. Gudehus: "Re: Linux/IA-64 byte order"
- In reply to: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patch"
- Next in thread: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patch"
- Reply: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patch"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:41:00 +0000 To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> With the x86-64 optimized vsyscall the syscall number does
> not need to be placed into a register, because you have used
> the proper entry point. For any syscall worth tuning in
> user space I suspect that level of optimization would be
> beneficial. A fast call path that does not waste a register.
The cost of loading a constant into a register is _much_ lower than
the cost of indirect jumps which we have been discussing.
-- Jamie
-
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/
- Previous message: Donald H. Gudehus: "Re: Linux/IA-64 byte order"
- In reply to: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patch"
- Next in thread: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patch"
- Reply: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patch"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|