Re: [rfc patch] i386: don't save eflags on task switch

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
> There is no real need to save eflags in switch_to().  Instead,
> we can keep a constant value in the thread_struct and always
> restore that.

I don't really see the point. The "pushfl" isn't the expensive part, and 
it gives sane and expected semantics.

The "popfl" is the expensive part, and that's the thing that can't really 
even be removed.

			Linus
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [rfc patch] i386: don't save eflags on task switch
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [rfc patch] i386: don't save eflags on task switch
    • From: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Task Watchers v2: Task watchers v2
• Next by Date: Re: Avoid allocating during interleave from almost full nodes
• Previous by thread: [rfc patch] i386: don't save eflags on task switch
• Next by thread: Re: [rfc patch] i386: don't save eflags on task switch
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]