On 10.04.13 at 02:43, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
OK, thinking about the GDT here.
The GDT is quite small -- 256 bytes on i386, 128 bytes on x86-64. As
such, we probably don't want to allocate a full page to it for only
that. This means that in order to create a readonly mapping
Right... the TSS does get written to during a task switch.
Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
On 10.04.13 at 02:43, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
OK, thinking about the GDT here.
The GDT is quite small -- 256 bytes on i386, 128 bytes on x86-64. As
such, we probably don't want to
On 04/10/2013 02:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
However, the packing solution has the advantage of reducing address
space consumption which matters on 32 bits: even on i386 we can easily
burn a megabyte of address space for 4096 processors, but burning 16
megabytes starts to hurt.
Packing
OK, thinking about the GDT here.
The GDT is quite small -- 256 bytes on i386, 128 bytes on x86-64. As
such, we probably don't want to allocate a full page to it for only
that. This means that in order to create a readonly mapping we have to
pack GDTs from different CPUs together in the same
On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 17:43 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
OK, thinking about the GDT here.
The GDT is quite small -- 256 bytes on i386, 128 bytes on x86-64. As
such, we probably don't want to allocate a full page to it for only
that. This means that in order to create a readonly mapping we
On 04/09/2013 05:53 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 17:43 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
OK, thinking about the GDT here.
The GDT is quite small -- 256 bytes on i386, 128 bytes on x86-64. As
such, we probably don't want to allocate a full page to it for only
that. This means
