[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200611051754.11982.ak@suse.de>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:54:11 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc patch] i386: don't save eflags on task switch
On Sunday 05 November 2006 17:12, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And changing restore-flags to a "conditional branch around sti"
Yes of course.
> is likely
> not much better
We'll see.
It used to be a bad idea because everything was inline, but these
days with out of line code one can be much more flexible.
> - mispredicted branches on a P4 are potentially worse than
> the popf cost.
They are far less than 48 cycles. The P4 is not _that_ bad in this
area.
> Side note: for the netburst microarchitecture - aka P4 - in general,
> something like 48 cycles is a _good_ thing. I measured a internal
> micro-fault for marking a page table entry dirty at over 1500 cycles!
> There's a reason Intel dropped Netburst in favour of Core 2 - which is
> largely just an improved Pentium Pro uarch. Admittedly, the "just" is a
> bit unfair, because there's a _lot_ of improvement, but still..
>
> So you should never actually make any real code design decisions based on
> a P4 result. The P4 is goign away, and it was odd.
There are millions and millions of P4s out there running
Linux and I don't think that will change any time soon (in fact Intel will
be still shipping many new ones for a long time) If there are cheap
valuable optimizations for P4 that don't impact others much I'm all for them.
-Andi
-
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