[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081105175318.GD7286@localhost>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:53:18 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, lguest@...abs.org,
jeremy@...source.com, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/RFB] x86_64, i386: interrupt dispatch changes
[Ingo Molnar - Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:52:45PM +0100]
|
| * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
|
| > Ingo Molnar wrote:
| > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
| > >
| > >> And as hpa's comments point it out, compressing the rather stupid
| > >> irq stubs might be a third option that looks promising as well.
| > >
| > > ... and we should try and see how far we can compress those stubs,
| > > before we do any segment register based tricks.
| > >
| >
| > Using the techniques previously mentioned, for 224 vectors:
| >
| > 1792 bytes ( 8 bytes/stub) - trivial.
| > 1568 bytes ( 7 bytes/stub) - same without alignment.
| > 952 bytes (~4 bytes/stub) - extra jump needed.
| >
| > For comparison, the IDT itself is 2048 bytes on x86-32 and 4096 bytes on
| > x86-64.
|
| sounds like a plan :)
|
| Ingo
|
Ingo, what the conclusion is? As I understand from the thread --
1) Implement Peter's proposed cleanup/compress.
2) Test Alexander's patche.
Did I miss something?
- Cyrill -
--
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