[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <553977AA.9040802@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:52:26 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm/entry/32: Restore %ss before SYSRETL if necessary
On 04/23/2015 03:38 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Because there are way more sysrets than context switches, and Linux is
>> particularly sensitive to system call latency, by design.
>
Just to clarify: why would Linux be more sensitive to system call by
design? It enables much simpler APIs and avoids hacks like sending down
a syscall task list (which was genuinely proposed at one point.) If
kernel entry/exit is too expensive, then the APIs get more complex
because they *have* to do everything in the smallest number of system calls.
-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