Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965235AbWIVWYt (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:24:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965212AbWIVWYs (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:24:48 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:40899 "EHLO mail.goop.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965235AbWIVWYs (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:24:48 -0400 Message-ID: <451462B0.8000709@goop.org> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:24:48 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rusty Russell CC: Andi Kleen , lkml - Kernel Mailing List , virtualization Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] References: <1158925861.26261.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1158925997.26261.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1158926106.26261.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1158926106.26261.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1572 Lines: 31 Rusty Russell wrote: > This patch implements save/restore of %gs in the kernel, so it can be > used for per-cpu data. This is not cheap, and we do it for UP as well > as SMP, which is stupid. Benchmarks, anyone? > I measured the cost as adding 9 cycles to a null syscall on my Core Duo machine. I have not explicitly measured it on other machines, but I run a number of other segment save/load tests on a wide range of machines, and didn't find much variability. I think saving/restoring %gs will still be necessary. There are a number of places in the kernel which expect to find the usermode %gs on the kernel stack frame, including context switch, ptrace, vm86, signal context, and maybe something else. If you don't save it on the stack, then you need to have UP variations of %gs handling in all those other places, which is pretty messy. Also, unless you want to have two definitions of struct_pt regs (which would add even more mess into ptrace), you'd still need to sub/add %esp in entry.S to skip over the %gs hole. I don't think this UP microoptimisation would be worth enough to justify the mess it would cause elsewhere. How does this version of the patch differ from mine? Is it just my patch+Ingo's fix, or are there other changes? I couldn't see anything from a quick read-over. J - 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/