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

> sti is expensive as well; iirc just as expensive on most processors as 
> popf, 


On K8 STI is 4 cycles.

> although I don't have hard numbers to back this up on hand.  An  
> _unlikely_ jcc + popf? is better than a sti, for sure, but a likely 
> jcc+popf could cost more than a jcc+sti, depending on model.

99.9999% of all restore_flags just need STI.


-Andi
-
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: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: [rfc patch] i386: don't save eflags on task switch
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Fix SUNRPC wakeup/execute race condition
• Previous by thread: Re: [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]