Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:45:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:45:48 -0500 Received: from packet.digeo.com ([12.110.80.53]:9373 "EHLO packet.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:45:45 -0500 Message-ID: <3DFFFF52.1290377D@digeo.com> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:53:38 -0800 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.5.52 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Rothwell CC: Linus Torvalds , LKML Subject: Re: Intel P6 vs P7 system call performance References: <20021218154023.29726d09.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2002 04:53:38.0864 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E0C0B00:01C2A651] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2132 Lines: 54 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Linus, Andrew, > > On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:07:53 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Btw, on another tangent - Andrew Morton reports that APM is unhappy about > > the fact that the fast system call stuff required us to move the segments > > around a bit. That's probably because the APM code has the old APM segment > > numbers hardcoded somewhere, but I don't see where (I certainly knew about > > the segment number issue, and tried to update the cases I saw). > > I looked at this yesterday and decided that it was OK as well. > > > Debugging help would be appreciated, especially from somebody who knows > > the APM code. > > It would help to know what "unhappy" means :-) The lcall seems to be going awry. It oopses when apmd starts up, and the sysenter patch is the trigger. CPU: 0 EIP: 00b8:[<000044d7>] Not tainted EFLAGS: 00010202 EIP is at 0x44d7 eax: 000000c8 ebx: 00000001 ecx: 00000000 edx: 00000000 esi: c02e0091 edi: 000000ff ebp: ceed1ec4 esp: ceed1e74 ds: 0000 es: 0000 ss: 0068 Process apmd (pid: 679, threadinfo=ceed0000 task=cfa058a0) Stack: 0000530a 00b844e8 00000000 ceed1ec4 c0112739 00000060 ceed1ec4 000000ff 00000068 00000068 ceed1f32 c02e0091 000000ff 00000202 ceed0000 cf706c24 00000000 00000000 c0130000 c1740000 ceed1f04 c0112b72 0000530a 00000001 Call Trace: [] apm_bios_call+0x75/0xf4 [] cache_init_objs+0x34/0xd8 [] apm_get_power_status+0x42/0x84 [] __alloc_pages+0x77/0x244 [] apm_get_info+0x38/0xe4 [] proc_file_read+0xa9/0x1ac [] vfs_read+0xb7/0x138 [] sys_read+0x2a/0x40 [] syscall_call+0x7/0xb > Does the following fix it for you? Untested, assumes cache lines are 32 > bytes. > I cleverly left the laptop at work. Shall test tomorrow. - 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/