Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i said this before: using segmentation tricks these days is /insane/.
> Segmentation is not for free, and it's not going to be cheap in the
> future. In fact, chances are that it will be /more/ expensive in the
> future, because sane OSs just make no use of them besides the trivial
> "they dont even exist" uses.
>
Many, many systems use %fs/%gs to implement some kind of thread-local
storage, and such usage is becoming more common; the PDA's use of it in
the kernel is no different. I would agree that using all the obscure
corners of segmentation is just asking for trouble, but using %gs as an
address offset seems like something that's going to be efficient on x86
32/64 processors indefinitely.
> so /at a minimum/, as i suggested it before, the kernel's segment use
> should not overlap that of glibc's. I.e. the kernel should use %fs, not
> %gs.
Last time you raised this I did a pretty comprehensive set of tests
which showed there was flat out zero difference between using %fs and
%gs. There doesn't seem to be anything to the theory that reloading a
null segment selector is in any way cheaper than loading a real
selector. Did you find a problem in my methodology?
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]
