On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Gary Stanley wrote:
At 06:00 AM 1/2/2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Per later discussion you will also need to either comment out the syscalls
that are (might be) being cached by glibc to artificially inflate its
reported rate, or verify that it is not doing so.
IIRC linux us
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008, Jeff Roberson wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008, Gergely CZUCZY wrote:
There's this SYSCALL CPU extension with the SYSENTER/SYSEXIT features.
IIRC
Linux takes advantage of this, while FreeBSD doesn't. I might be wrong
here,
of course.
T
Quoting Gergely CZUCZY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Tue, 1 Jan 2008 15:21:16 +0100):
> Is there some wiki pages or any writings on this issue? I'm not so
> familiar with this COMPAT_43 obsolated stuff, and I'd like to
> know what's going on, what's the problem, and so on...
http://www.freebsd.org/project
At 06:00 AM 1/2/2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Per later discussion you will also need to either comment out the
syscalls that are (might be) being cached by glibc to artificially
inflate its reported rate, or verify that it is not doing so.
Kris
IIRC linux uses vsyscalls on x86_64, and calling
On 02/01/2008, Josh Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does anyone have a theory why syscalls are so expensive in FreeBSD? Here
> > are the results of unixbench 4.1 on two machines. First is the machine
> > running FreeBSD HEAD (debugging disabled) on a dual-core Athlon 64 (i386
> > mode), 2 GH
Josh Carroll wrote:
Does anyone have a theory why syscalls are so expensive in FreeBSD? Here
are the results of unixbench 4.1 on two machines. First is the machine
running FreeBSD HEAD (debugging disabled) on a dual-core Athlon 64 (i386
mode), 2 GHz:
I ran the syscall benchmark from UnixBench o
