On Sep 14, 2015 1:26 AM, "Ingo Molnar" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > (I'm not very comfortable about additional six push/pops > > > which are necessary for this to happen. I'm surprised > > > maintainers tentatively agreed to that - > > > I was grilled and asked to prove with measurements > > > that *one* additional push+pop wasn't adding significant overhead). > > > > I suspect that I need to make the series faster. > > > > Also, int $0x80 isn't a fast path for any legitimate use case except > > Debian, and I would argue that Debian is just buggy. > > So buggy in the sense of not making use of faster syscalls, right? It won't > break > in any visible way, correct?
Correct. The only visible breakage I know of is that my unwind selftest fails if compiled by a Debian toolchain, and I'll fix that in v2. > > So if this heavy int80 syscall use happens even with the latest version of > Debian > as well then it would be nice to figure out what's wrong there, and provide an > optimization patch to their libc guys or so - to make sure we fully > understand the > problem. I looked for a bit and drew a blank, but I know I'm bad at understanding Debian packaging and even worse at understanding the mess that is glibc's pile of multiply compiled files. I'll file a bug or something. --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
