Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Implement prctl PR_GET_TSC and PR_SET_TSC

[Erik Bosman]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > why did you make this a configuration option? In general it's not
> > a good idea to make userspace visible ABI's (PR_* clearly is one of these)
> > a CONFIG option unless there's some HUGE space saving going on.
> > I don't see that here....
> >
> > So can you explain your rationale for making this a config option?
> >

The ABI itself is not a config option (see patch 1/3.)
If the x86 implementation patch isn't applied, prctl() will
return -EINVAL, just like most other PR_* options, which are
only implemented on specific architectures, take (PR_GET/PR_SET_ENDIAN)
as an example.

>
> I also saw no mention about performance impact, which need to be
> considered whenever *anything* is proposed to be inserted into a hot
> path.  It may be (heck, *should be*) that the performance impact isn't
> measurable, but that needs to be positively established.
>

This is why I made the implementation part configurable, although I don't
think the overhead will be very high since it seems to me that the
__switch_to_xtra function was designed explicitly to keep unusual options
out of the hot path.


--
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/