Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:31:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:31:18 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.141]:28940 "EHLO smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:31:02 -0500 Message-ID: <3C69C1BD.CB57A57C@linux-m68k.org> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:30:37 +0100 From: Roman Zippel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.17 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" CC: pavel@suse.cz, davidm@hpl.hp.com, anton@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: thread_info implementation In-Reply-To: <15464.34183.282646.869983@napali.hpl.hp.com> <20020211.190449.55725714.davem@redhat.com> <20020212171421.GE148@elf.ucw.cz> <20020212.164636.21927297.davem@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, "David S. Miller" wrote: > So you essentially made your cache one cacheline smaller. > > Not at all, that cacheline has to be in the cache anyways because > it also holds all the other information which needs to be accessed > during trap entry/exit. > > Try again. Larger code size due to the extra load? At least two cache lines needed for any access to task_struct? David, what are you trying to prove? Any architecture which has a thread register prefers to access data directly through this register and it's not really difficult to avoid this indirection, that might be needed on ia32. bye, Roman - 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/