From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 28 9: 2:14 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail.interware.hu (mail.interware.hu [195.70.32.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9093537B400; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:02:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from nairobi-20.budapest.interware.hu ([195.70.50.212] helo=elischer.org) by mail.interware.hu with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian)) id 140o8f-0003Ty-00; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:01:53 +0100 Message-ID: <3A23E4F7.8E42EB3E@elischer.org> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:01:43 -0800 From: Julian Elischer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386) X-Accept-Language: en, hu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marius Bendiksen Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Daniel Eischen , John Baldwin , Jonathan Lemon , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Thread-specific data and KSEs References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Marius Bendiksen wrote: > > > > It's just one more register that has to be saved. I don't > > > think it's going to matter much. > > No extra TLB faults/invalidations? Aren't segment registers > > somewhat expensive to load? > > Upon loading a task state (with ltr or a gate), you will restore all > segment registers from the tss, regardless of their content, and a load of > the shadow portion of the segment will be attempted anyway. I don't think > this is the right place to shave off cycles, nor do I think the speed is > even the most relevant issue for this extension, but rather the abuse of > segments that are ment to hold real data. We don't use TSS to swap between processes.. > > Marius > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message -- __--_|\ Julian Elischer / \ julian@elischer.org ( OZ ) World tour 2000 ---> X_.---._/ presently in: Budapest v To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message