Eric Dumazet wrote:
> if !CONFIG_SMP, why even dereferencing boot_pda+PDA_cpu to get 0 ?
> and as PER_CPU(cpu_gdt_descr, %ebx) in !CONFIG_SMP doesnt need the a value in
> ebx, you can just do :
>
> #define CUR_CPU(reg) /* nothing */
>
Yep. On the other hand, I think that's an incredibly rare
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 00:12, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Could you try this patch out and see if it makes much performance
> difference for you. You should apply this on top of the %fs patch I
> posted earlier (and use the %fs patch as the baseline for your
> comparisons).
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Seeing %gs prefixes used now by i386 port, I recalled seeing strange oprofile
> results on Opteron machines.
Hi Eric,
Could you try this patch out and see if it makes much performance
difference for you. You should apply this on top of the %fs patch I
posted earlier (and u
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> what point would there be in using it? It's not like the kernel could
> make use of the thread keyword anytime soon (it would need /all/
> architectures to support it) ...
The plan was to implement the x86 arch-specific percpu stuff to use it,
since it allows gcc better opti
4 matches
Mail list logo
