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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
