On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> > For fixed sized copies, copy_to_user() will utilize __put_user_size
> > fastpaths. However, it is missing the translation for 64bit copies on
> > x86/32. Testing on a Pinetrail Atom, the 64 bit put_user
* Chris Wilson wrote:
> For fixed sized copies, copy_to_user() will utilize __put_user_size
> fastpaths. However, it is missing the translation for 64bit copies on
> x86/32. Testing on a Pinetrail Atom, the 64 bit put_user fastpath is
> substantially faster than the generic copy_to_user()
* Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote:
For fixed sized copies, copy_to_user() will utilize __put_user_size
fastpaths. However, it is missing the translation for 64bit copies on
x86/32. Testing on a Pinetrail Atom, the 64 bit put_user fastpath is
substantially faster than the generic
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote:
For fixed sized copies, copy_to_user() will utilize __put_user_size
fastpaths. However, it is missing the translation for 64bit copies on
x86/32. Testing on a Pinetrail Atom, the
For fixed sized copies, copy_to_user() will utilize __put_user_size
fastpaths. However, it is missing the translation for 64bit copies on
x86/32. Testing on a Pinetrail Atom, the 64 bit put_user fastpath is
substantially faster than the generic copy_to_user() fallback.
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc:
For fixed sized copies, copy_to_user() will utilize __put_user_size
fastpaths. However, it is missing the translation for 64bit copies on
x86/32. Testing on a Pinetrail Atom, the 64 bit put_user fastpath is
substantially faster than the generic copy_to_user() fallback.
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
6 matches
Mail list logo