[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C18B9AC.3070409@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:46:52 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
CC: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Really lazy fpu
On 06/16/2010 02:32 PM, George Spelvin wrote:
>
> (An halfway version of this optimization whoch sould avoid the need for
> an IPI would be *save* the FPU state, but mark it "clean", so the re-load
> can be skipped if we're lucky. If the code supported this as well as the
> IPI alternative, you could make a heuristic guess at switch-out time
> whether to save immediately or hope the odds of needing the IPI are less than
> the fxsave/IPI cost ratio.)
>
That's an interesting optimization - and we already have something
similar in the form of fpu preload. Shouldn't be too hard to do.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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