Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] x86-64: Emulate legacy vsyscalls

[Ingo Molnar]

* pageexec@xxxxxxxxxxx <pageexec@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 8 Jun 2011 at 8:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > you seemed to have made a distinction, you tell me ;), [...]
> > 
> > I have not made any distinction at all, *you* wrote:
> 
> i asked you that question because for all this time you seemed to 
> have been very worked up by the fact that i called the page fault 
> path as not 'fast'. i thought maybe what caused your nervous 
> reaction and desperate attempts at trying to justify it was due to 
> some misunderstanding in wording, but i now see that we probably 
> talked about the same thing. with the exception that you *still* 
> have not provided any evidence for your claim. why is that Ingo? do 
> you have nothing to prove your single cycle 'improvemnt'? (sorry, 
> had a chuckle again ;).

You are again trying to shift the topic. Your original claim, which 
you snipped from your reply:

  > a page fault is never a fast path

is simply ridiculous on its face and crazy talk, and no amount of 
insults you hurl at me will change that fact - you ignored the 
various pieces of evidence that i cited that the page fault code is 
very much a fastpath: past commits, cycles estimations, a list of 
various (obvious) types of impact, the statements of several 
prominent kernel developers (including Linus) that establish that the 
page fault path is very much treated as a fastpath by everyone who 
develops it and you also ignored the fact that there's a working 
alternative that has none of those disadvantages.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/