Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 19:36:57 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Roelof Osinga <roelof@nisser.com>, Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org>, freebsd-chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Yahoo hacked last night Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991208193510.14340A-100000@shell-1.enteract.com> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991208182954.048a3460@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > At 06:19 PM 12/8/1999 , Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > >> So, Intel had no incentive to make the instructions which manipulated > > > segments fast. To this day, Pentiums support them only for downward > > > compatibility and to allow the implementation of VMs. The segmentation > > > instructions are microcoded rather than hardwired, and can cause > > > expensive pipeline stalls or (worse) flushes if you use them. > > > >So they really can only be done in page sized chunks... :) > > No, you just have to be willing to take a hit of about 60 cycles > per function call, worst case. The thing is, with clock speeds > ready to hit 1 MHz, this is getting to be a trivial amount of > overhead. > > --Brett Glass > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.991208193510.14340A-100000>