Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:24:21 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Suggestions on Avoiding syscall Overhead Message-ID: <20070426102420.GA819@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <2018ADA6-11D5-48D1-98BD-4397A60E14AF@FreeBSD.org> References: <f126fae00704221639l68095de1ye7ce9ba3d921bf20@mail.gmail.com> <20070423113400.GC28587@gw.humppa.dk> <2018ADA6-11D5-48D1-98BD-4397A60E14AF@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 2007-Apr-25 01:03:19 -0700, Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@freebsd.org> wrote: >IMHO, the main usage of the global readonly page is (apart from >faster gettimeofday and similar) is that you can put the syscall >entry function in it, and have the kernel choose at boot the most >efficient method (INT 0x80 or SYSENTER/SYSCALL) based on what the CPU >supports, while still having binaries that run everywhere. That's a nice idea. The only downside I see is that it means the page would need to be executable. I would prefer not to have data areas executable - even if they are read-only. I think that FreeBSD should make more use of CPU-specific coding to enhance performance. Maybe even something along the lines of Solaris where linking to libc implicitly links to a CPU-specific .so if it exists. >Similarly, I don't think getuid, geteuid, getpid,getgid, getegid, >getpgrp are used enough to justify the work. Likewise. -- Peter Jeremy [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGMH3U/opHv/APuIcRAhiJAJ0acpN1zmpsv20RyEVifF8Dz+4dEACfUOXV eEp1OpNnq2yw3a17ZJa4ttg= =bs14 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070426102420.GA819>