[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E5568AC.2040605@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:10:04 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] SYSCALL, ptrace and syscall restart breakages (Re:
[RFC] weird crap with vdso on uml/i386)
On 08/23/2011 02:10 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:06:03PM -0400, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 08/23/2011 01:56 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>>
>>> But no, I don't think the difference has disappeared - to the contrary,
>>> AFAICT, the intention is for SYSCALL to be the fastest way to do
>>> syscalls on x86 due to diminished number of segment checks etc. INT80
>>> is legacy, slower, etc. I believe Andy measured a similar situation on
>>> Sandy Bridge with SYSCALL having latencies in the tens of nsecs range
>>> and INT80 being much slower. Ingo also measured a similar situation
>>> where the latency gap between the two on Intel is even bigger.
>>>
>>
>> Sandy Bridge doesn't have SYSCALL32 at all. It has SYSENTER and SYSCALL64.
>
> Yeah, I was talking about SYSCALL in general.
>
By the way, Borislav;
any way you could nudge your hardware people into
a) supporting SYSENTER in compatibility mode, and
b) giving us a way to turn SYSCALL *off* in compat mode?
... for future chips?
-hpa
--
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