* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > pushfl
> After all, I very strongly suspect that we don't actually really
> _care_ if eflags stays the same over a system call, and I could see
> that some dynamic CPU's might prefer not having to push an eflags
> value that just got changed by the "sti", so it _might_ save several
> cycles to avoid that dependency, and also obviously avoid a subtle
> dependency on a sw level that the previous patch clearly introduced.
>
> Anybody willing to time it? ;)
i can tell you without any measurement that pushfl is slower by a couple
of cycles than a simple pushl $0x00010046, on basically all x86 CPUs.
And since we only support SYENTER from 32-bit mode and we dont guarantee
flags to be saved, it isnt all that incorrect to do?
Ingo
-
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/
