> Is using %cr2 really faster than the old implementation, or is there
> another reason? It seems that the alignment constraints on the stack
> still remains, since the %esp solution still remains in places...
The stack is no longer aligned. We allocate two pages and disturb the stack
by upto 1.5K. We slab the task structs.
> It might also be worth considering a segment-register based
> implementation instead. The reason we're not using %fs and %gs in the
> kernel anymore is because of the setup slowness, but perhaps using
> them (use %fs since it's much more likely to be NULL and thus faster
> to restore) would be faster than using %cr2?
It may be. Likewise its not clear if %cr2 should hold current or a cpu ident
pointer (so you dont reload on switch of task). This needs more
benchmarking. Its in current -ac to verify the theory is correct not the
tuning.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:29 EST