From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Dec 14 21:42:17 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A7137B401 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:42:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sharma-home.net (cpe-66-1-147-119.ca.sprintbbd.net [66.1.147.119]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0432343EA9 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:42:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from adsharma@eagle.sharma-home.net) Received: by eagle.sharma-home.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id C4F215E913; Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:43:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:43:27 -0800 From: Arun Sharma To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: syscall overhead in -current Message-ID: <20021215054327.GA26901@sharma-home.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG It seems to me that userret() in 5.0-current is adding quite a bit of overhead to the syscall latency in FreeBSD. Has anyone done any measurements of syscall latency for 4.x vs 5.x on identical hardware ? -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message