On 03/30/12 15:36, Giovanni Trematerra wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Mahesh Babu wrote:
Which part of the source code in FreeBSD 9 is responsible for making context
switching i.e. storing and restoring the process state.
Context switch is split up in machine indipendent code (MI
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Mahesh Babu wrote:
> Which part of the source code in FreeBSD 9 is responsible for making context
> switching i.e. storing and restoring the process state.
>
Context switch is split up in machine indipendent code (MI Code) and
machine dependent code
Which part of the source code in FreeBSD 9 is responsible for making context
switching i.e. storing and restoring the process state.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, s
> Yes, but the question was "how is it preserved"? The SSE stuff works the
> same as the FPU stuff in that it is switched lazily. See npxsave() and
> where it is called. If a process "attaches" to the fpu, its state is kept
> in the fpu the whole time. It is
"attaches" to the fpu, its state is kept
in the fpu the whole time. It is not extracted at context switch time.
So, we can be running a different process while the fpu/xmm stuff is holding
the original process's context. If the new process tries to use the SSE/fpu
stuff, a trap h
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:27:38AM -0500, Kevin Day wrote:
> A quick peek at swtch.s seems to show that the SSE registers (XMM0-7) aren't
> being preserved across context switches. Am I missing somewhere that's doing
> this, or are they really not being saved now?
SSE support has recently been ad
A quick peek at swtch.s seems to show that the SSE registers (XMM0-7) aren't
being preserved across context switches. Am I missing somewhere that's doing
this, or are they really not being saved now?
--
Kevin Day
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTEC
Hi,
Try to control the NIC output, instead of dropping the packet, I would
like to do context switch on current sending process. tsleep() seems not
to be a right mechanism for this purpose because it will panic in the kernel
wherever between the network and link layers the tsleep() is put
There is a port of Larry McVoy's Benchmarks in benchmarks/lmbench, which
(as one small part of the benchmark suite) accurately measures context
switching overhead in a number of different situations (number of active
processes, data segment size).
The context switch time depends on a number
think that's to long.
There is a port of Larry McVoy's Benchmarks in benchmarks/lmbench, which
(as one small part of the benchmark suite) accurately measures context
switching overhead in a number of different situations (number of active
processes, data segment size).
The context swi
Hi
Dose anyone know how long a the kernel is busy with context switching
(beetween two processes) ?
Has anyone tested this yet?
I estimate of about 7 usec duration for that, (on a Pentium 400) but
I think that's to long.
Regards
Thomas
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.or
Hi
Dose anyone know how long a the kernel is busy with context switching
(beetween two processes) ?
Has anyone tested this yet?
I estimate of about 7 usec duration for that, (on a Pentium 400) but
I think that's to long.
Regards
Thomas
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Hi
Dose anyone know how long a the kernel is buisy with context switching
(beetween two processes) ?
Has anyone testet this yet?
I have made estimate of 7 usec duration for that, (on a Pentium 400) but
I think that's to long.
Regards
Thomas
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECT
Hi
Dose anyone know how long a the kernel is buisy with context switching
(beetween two processes) ?
Has anyone testet this yet?
I have made estimate of 7 usec duration for that, (on a Pentium 400) but
I think that's to long.
Regards
Thomas
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freeb
14 matches
Mail list logo
