Re: For your amusement: slightly faster syscalls

* H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Well... with UP we don't even need GS in the kernel... Yeah, but it was just a simple demo, to see how much of a speedup the GS access reordering it is, so in that sense it was good enough to see that the speedup is 3 cycles. (Got the original email forwarded meanw

Re: For your amusement: slightly faster syscalls

Well... with UP we don't even need GS in the kernel... On June 18, 2015 1:01:06 AM PDT, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >* Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:42 PM, H. Peter Anvin >wrote: >> > On 06/15/2015 02:30 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2015 2:09 PM, "Andy Lutom

Re: For your amusement: slightly faster syscalls

* Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:42 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > On 06/15/2015 02:30 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > >> > > >> On Jun 12, 2015 2:09 PM, "Andy Lutomirski" > >> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Caveat emptor

Re: For your amusement: slightly faster syscalls

* Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:42 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 06/15/2015 02:30 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> > >> On Jun 12, 2015 2:09 PM, "Andy Lutomirski" >> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Caveat emptor: it also disables SMP. > >> > >> OK, I don'

Re: For your amusement: slightly faster syscalls

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:42 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 06/15/2015 02:30 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> On Jun 12, 2015 2:09 PM, "Andy Lutomirski" > > wrote: >>> >>> Caveat emptor: it also disables SMP. >> >> OK, I don't think it's interesting in that form. >> >> F

Re: For your amusement: slightly faster syscalls

On 06/15/2015 02:30 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Jun 12, 2015 2:09 PM, "Andy Lutomirski" > wrote: >> >> Caveat emptor: it also disables SMP. > > OK, I don't think it's interesting in that form. > > For small cpu counts, I guess we could have per-cpu syscall entry