Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 02:13:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: dillon@apollo.backplane.com (Matthew Dillon) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, Marius.Bendiksen@scancall.no, rnordier@nordier.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD on i386 memory model Message-ID: <199811180213.TAA21491@usr01.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199811172208.OAA29032@apollo.backplane.com> from "Matthew Dillon" at Nov 17, 98 02:08:57 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The only differences between a normal call gate and an > interrupt is that an interrupt disables interrupts on call > (cli equivalent), while a call gate does not, and a > call gate has extra garbage to handle argument copying > (which we don't use), while an interrupt does not. > > There are constructs that make call gates sound like a > walk in the park, though... a task gate, for example. > What a holy mess. > > Interrupt gates are definitely faster. But as SEF notes, a call gate gan go to any address in any ring, but an Interrupt can't, so using an interrupt makes for slower emulation. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811180213.TAA21491>