Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:29:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:29:41 -0500 Received: from harpo.it.uu.se ([130.238.12.34]:38355 "EHLO harpo.it.uu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:29:40 -0500 From: Mikael Pettersson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15871.24785.792097.896169@harpo.it.uu.se> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:37:21 +0100 To: root@chaos.analogic.com Cc: Ulrich Drepper , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Intel P6 vs P7 system call performance In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under Emacs 20.7.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 838 Lines: 21 Richard B. Johnson writes: > Actually I should be: > > pushl $next_address # Where to go when the call returns > pushl $0xfffff000 # Put this on the stack > ret # 'Return' to it (jump) > next_address: # Were we end up after You just killed that process' performance by causing the return-stack branch prediction buffer to go out of sync. It might have worked ok on a 486, but P6+ don't like it one bit. This is also why I'm slightly unhappy about the s/int $0x80/call
/ approach, since it leads to yet another recursion level and risk overflowing the RSB. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/