On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 17:56 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wednesday 04 April 2007 17:45:44 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Why is there a difference for null syscall? I had assumed we patched all > > > the > > > fast path cases relevant there. Do you have an idea where it comes from? > > > > Sure. There's indirect calls for things like sti/cli/iret. It goes > > back to native speed when you patch the real instructions inline. > > I was talking about the patched case. It seemed to be a little slower > too, but in theory it shouldn't have been, no?
You'll still have the damage inflicted on gcc's optimizer, though. Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
