[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <450884A1.2060905@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:22:25 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael A Fetterman <Michael.Fetterman@...cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Assignment of GDT entries
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I'd not be surprised if movign the TLS segments around would break
> something.
>
I don't think so. 32-bit code running on x86-64 has different TLS
selectors, and everything seems to work there...
> That said, numbers talk, bullshit walks. If the above just works a lot
> better for all modern CPU's that all have 64-byte cachelines (because now
> _everything_ is in that bigger cacheline), and if you can show that with
> numbers, and nothing breaks in practice, then hey..
>
My goal would be to do a minimal change which packs all the useful stuff
together in a 64-byte line. Ideally it would just use two 32-byte
lines, but I don't think that's as important.
Caching effects are pretty hard to measure anyway, and with something as
deeply x86-microarchitectural as this, I could imagine lots of other CPU
cleverness which could obscure any simple measurement. But packing
things into a line certainly can't hurt.
I'll put something together, and see how it goes...
J
-
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