Re: crash in entry.S restore_all, 2.6.12-rc2, x86, PAGEALLOC
From: Ingo Molnar (mingo_at_elte.hu)
Date: 04/07/05
- Previous message: Jens Axboe: "Re: [OOPS] 2.6.11 - NMI lockup with CFQ scheduler"
- In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: crash in entry.S restore_all, 2.6.12-rc2, x86, PAGEALLOC"
- Next in thread: Dave Jones: "Re: crash in entry.S restore_all, 2.6.12-rc2, x86, PAGEALLOC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:51:50 +0200 To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
* 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/
- Previous message: Jens Axboe: "Re: [OOPS] 2.6.11 - NMI lockup with CFQ scheduler"
- In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: crash in entry.S restore_all, 2.6.12-rc2, x86, PAGEALLOC"
- Next in thread: Dave Jones: "Re: crash in entry.S restore_all, 2.6.12-rc2, x86, PAGEALLOC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|