| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:20:11 +0100 From: Alex Buell <alex.buell@...ted.org.uk> To: Mailing Lists - Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Atom N270 more efficent with int 0x80 than with syscalls Recently I rewrote a small assembler program to test timings and print out timing informations for various assembly routines. Then I thought to add tests for timings on int 0x80 and calling via syscalls. Now I know int 0x80 calls are expensive on processors such as the Pentium IV but someone has tested my assembly program with their Atom N270 1.6GHz system, and int 0x80s calls are actually much quicker than syscalls on these processors. Here's the test program that exposed the timing differences with these int 0x80 calls and syscalls: http://www.munted.org.uk/programming/newtimer.zip Perhaps the kernel could be greatly speeded up on certain processors if it dynamically adapts to use the quickest type of system calls? -- http://www.munted.org.uk One very high maintenance cat living here. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists